The Pope Is Worried

Folks,

Please watch this video by Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV:

The Pope Is Worried

Then read the Pope's recent statements at the Mass of the Lord's Supper and Chrism Mass. "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be," Matthew 24:37-39.

Obama's Birth Certificate

Folks,

As the news media reports, the Obama birth certificate has been released. We need to remember that being murderers of unborn babies and sanctifiers of homosexual filth, by definition Obama and the people with him are liars. Yet liberal Catholics enamoured with the false gospel of social justice, the common good and peace at any price will continue to sacrifice all reason and logic at the altar of their false god, the first black president who actually is half black and half white, not that that makes any difference for what does make a difference is their racial bias often against their own race in putting skin color before such logic and reason - "we have to support The One no matter what in order to show ourselves diverse and tolerant and accepting and nice." What freaking nonsense!

The American Catholic blogiste has an interesting discussion on this matter: Obama Releases Birth Certificate. Why Now?

Dr. Pournelle's thoughts over at Chaos Manor are these:

-----

Well That's Over...

Subj: Obama's Birth Certificate

Jerry,

The prez released his long-form birth certificate, and none of the speculation is borne out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8477589/Barack-Obama-hits-back-at-birthers-and-releases-birth-certificate.html

Cecil Rose

Which leaves only the question of why the heck didn't this happen two years ago? The question was moot from the day he was inaugurated.

We may now be amused by the coming storms over who won what in this latest round. Perhaps there ought to be a pool on just how long it will go on, except that the likelihood is that it will never end. Can we now get on with the most open administration in the history of the nation?

===========

Checking for myself

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

I downloaded the Barack Hussein Obama, II long form birth certificate .pdf file directly from whitehouse.gov. I opened it in Illustrator. Released the clipping mask. Yes, there are multiple layers. The lines of the form are not the same layer as the captions of the form. Individual letters in names and words are in separate layers from the rest of the name or word (i.e., 'K' in Kenya, 'S' in Stanley, 'R' in BARACK, and many more). It sure looks like it has been assembled from multiple elements. I can not think of an innocent reason for these facts. I also find it hard to understand how and why, if it's a forgery, it's such a clumsy forgery. Am I missing some reasonable technical explanation for these issues?

The file has also been scrubbed clean of most meta data. It was created on a Mac using OS X 10.6.7, but I don't see anything else useful.

Greg Hemsath

I have no idea here. There was a time when I could legitimately claim to be well versed in the uses of high technology for various purposes, but it's been a while since I did that sort of thing: I have to rely on advisors and experts. At least I understand what they tell me, even if I don't spend so much time doing silly things so you don't have to.

I would have thought that the simplest solution to all this would be a photograph of the original document. Presumably a release on the web would require digitization, but that's a simple scan, or even a digital photograph. I know there are some problems with pdf software, but surely the simplest processes would not produce a complex multi-layered document. I can conceive of too clever by half "plots" to make things complex and thus suck more people into arguing over moot points, but I can't think that even the kids who hang around in the White House are not above that sort of nonsense.

Ye flipping gods. Barrack Obama was born before Macs existed. Clearly the source of this was some document that existed prior to the Mac. The notion is to get this silly discussion out of the news and let us get to something important? Of course a computer had to be be used to produce a pdf copy -- pdf didn't exist in the days that the document was created -- but release of a pdf isn't the release of the original document. Perhaps we've just got the story wrong, and the original is on display for examination by qualified journalists in Honolulu. Surely this is just another silliness brought about by the modern "journalism", yet another reason I don't like to get involved in breaking stories. Surely it will all come out in the wash, and someone will produce an undoctored, non-layered, certified copy of the original document and we can all get on with more important matters. We have many experts on these matters in this readership and I'll wait to hear from them. Until then I assume that this was a release in good faith, and the original will be available in Honolulu, where someone is photocopying it even as I write this.

My Brother's Cats

Folks,

These are my brother's cats, Minnie and Donald. It's a pity there is more Christian chairty between these two cats than there is between most human beings. But perhaps my outlook is jaded tonight.

The Current President of These United States

Folks,

I received the following little essay from a friend with whom I had once worked at a commercial pressurized water reactor a little over a decade ago. His description of the godless man of sin who currently occupies the Oval Office is right on target.

If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
 
If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?
 
If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot?
 
If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?
 
If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?
 
If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the   scenes?
 
If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America?
 
If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
 
If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
 
If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?
 
If any other of our presidents would have flown all   the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.
 
If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?
 
If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
 
If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
 
If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than  in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
 
If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have ever approved.
 
If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no   constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
 
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?
 
Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 21 months -- so you have that much time to come up with an answer.
 
Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable .

He also has caused the price of gasoline to more than double during his watch.  It was $1.82 per gallon when he was sworn in, now it is hovering around $5.00 a gallon.  Way to go Pres.............
 

Thoughts on Today's Gospel Reading

Folks,

Today's Gospel reading is from Matthew 28:8-15. Reading this account of the angel who told the women about Jesus' Resurrection, and about the Jewsih religious elders bribing the soldiers to lie and say the disciples stole Jesus' body while they slept reveals certain interesting things:

(1) Jesus' Resurrection was announced to women first. This is a stunning rebuke to all those modernists who decry the patriarchal Church. While Jesus chose only men to be be His disciples (and likewise deacons, priests and bishops), women have always been there first. Eve born humanity. Deborah, Judith and Esther - all of Old Testament fame - did wonders to save the Hebrews from calamity. The Blessed Virgin Mary bore the Messiah. And once again, women (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary) were first to receive the announcement of the Resurrection.

(2) Jesus' command to these women was simple, "Go tell my brothers...." The command wasn't, "Go tell the Chief Priests..." Jesus wasn't interested in shaming His enemies, but in comforting His friends.

(3) The Chief Priests and elders gathered the soldiers under whose watch Jesus rose from the dead to bribe them with a large sum of money to lie and say Jesus' disciples stole Him while they slept. The Chief priests and elders loved their money more than anything and were always loathe to part with it. Yet here to discredit Jesus and hide the truth they would spend any sum. This is ironic since many of us are equally loathe to spend even a small amount of money to spread the truth. Here a lie would be disseminated by spending a large sum of money, but many begrudge the truth even a small sum. How sad that misers part with wealth for a lie, but Christians can't be bothered to part with a dollar for the truth.

(4) Jesus' work was finished on the sixth day of the Jewish week. Jesus rested in the bowels of the Earth on the seventh day. Jesus rose from the dead to new life without end on the first day of the following week, having created in effect a new world.

A John Paul II Beatification Catechism

Folks,

George Weigel at National Review Online has written an excellent article entitled, A John Paul II Beatification Catechism, which is reprinted in entirety here:

A John Paul II Beatification Catechism
Responding to the skeptics and critics

1. Has the beatification of John Paul II been a rush job, as some have charged?

No one said that the beatification of Mother Teresa was rushed, despite the calumnies against her work and reputation promoted by Christopher Hitchens. This process hasn’t been “rushed” either. The only procedural exception Pope Benedict XVI made was the same exception John Paul II made for Mother Teresa: He allowed the investigation to begin without the normal five-year waiting period.

The investigative process produced a massive, four-volume study that offers far more detail into the life and accomplishments of Karol Wojtyła, Pope John Paul II, than the American electorate was offered about the life and accomplishments of Barack Obama, or the British electorate was offered about the lives and accomplishments of David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The people complaining about a “rush” are typically “progressive” Catholics who never had much use for John Paul II because he didn’t turn Catholicism into another liberal Protestant denomination; or ultra-traditionalists who lament the fact that he didn’t restore the French monarchy, impose the Tridentine Mass in Latin on the entire Church, and burn dozens of German theologians in the Campo dei Fiori; or ill-informed journalists who can’t stop playing “gotcha” with the Catholic Church. Their criticisms are not taken seriously by serious people.

And in any case, the people of the Church spoke on April 8, 2005, with their chants of Santo subito! (“A saint now!”). The official judgment of the Church is now catching up with that spontaneous popular acclamation. It’s rather ironic to see people who are usually clamoring for “more democracy” in the Catholic Church complaining in this case about the verdict of the Church’s people.

2. How did the beatification process assess John Paul II’s life? How does his record as pope bear on that assessment?

The purpose of this beatification process, as with any such process, was to determine whether the life under study was one of heroic virtue. Over 100 formal witnesses were consulted and the four-volume study includes their testimonies, as well as a biography of the late pope and an examination of what were termed “special questions” — issues that arose during the beatification process itself, such as the charge (likely planted by former Stasi operatives) that young Karol Wojtyla had been involved in the assassination of two Gestapo agents during World War II. The charge was ridiculous, and it was refuted.

Evidently, the overwhelming judgment of those responsible, including Pope Benedict XVI, was that this was indeed a life of heroic virtue. I think that judgment is correct. It doesn’t mean that, as pope, John Paul II got everything right. No pope does. The question is whether he made his decisions prudently, according to his best judgment, and without fear or favor. In The End and the Beginning, the second volume of my biography of John Paul II, I explored that question over some 90 pages. My judgment is that John Paul consistently used his best judgment, without fear or favor, even in decisions I think he got wrong.

3. What were the chief qualities of John Paul II? What were his principal faults?

John Paul II’s radical Christian discipleship, and his remarkable capacity to let that commitment shine through his words and actions, made Christianity interesting and compelling in a world that thought it had outgrown its “need” for religious faith. He was a man of extraordinary courage, the kind of courage that comes from a faith forged in reflection on Calvary and the murder of the Son of God. He demonstrated, against the cultural conventions of his time, that young people want to be challenged to live lives of heroism. He lifted up the dignity of the human person at a moment when the West was tempted to traipse blithely down the path to Huxley’s brave new world of manufactured and stunted humanity. And he proclaimed the universality of human rights in a way that helped bring down the greatest tyranny in human history.

He was, like many saintly people, too patient with the faults of others. His distaste for making a spectacle of anyone, and his willingness to give people a second, third, and fourth chance, were admirable human qualities that arguably worked against the efficiency of his governance.

4. Has the Church been making too many saints since John Paul II changed the process?

First of all, the Church doesn’t “make saints”; God makes saints, and the Church recognizes the saints that God has made.

Second, I don’t quite understand how there could be “too many saints,” since sanctity is what the Church is in the business of fostering.

John Paul II was convinced that God is profligate in making saints, and that the Church should recognize that. The world always needs examples of men and women who have lived their lives nobly, courageously, generously. The world especially needs such witnesses today, when a thick fog of cynicism hangs over the West. What’s wrong with lifting up such lives and celebrating the grace of God that makes such saintly people possible?

5. Is Pope Benedict XVI beatifying John Paul II as a way of vindicating his own record as John Paul’s successor?

No, he isn’t. Benedict XVI has, after all, done some things differently, although there has been an essential continuity of teaching. But that was to be expected, as both John Paul II and Benedict XVI are teaching the faith of the Church, not their own opinions.

I think Benedict XVI was wise not to accede to requests for an immediate and virtually spontaneous beatification or canonization; I also think he was wise to waive the normal five-year waiting period for the process to begin. He worked with John Paul II for more than two decades, and he knows the qualities of sanctity that John Paul II exemplified.

6. What about John Paul II and the sexual-abuse scandal? Does the fact that this broke into public view during John Paul II’s pontificate raise serious questions about his heroic virtue?

In 1978, when Karol Wojtyla was elected pope, the Catholic priesthood was in terrible shape: More than 45,000 men had left the active ministry, in the greatest wave of defections since the 16th century, and seminaries were, in more than a few cases, zoos. Over the next twenty-six and a half years, John Paul II became one of the great papal reformers of the priesthood, and in several ways.

First, he was the greatest vocations director in history, inspiring tens of thousands of young men to give their lives to Christ and the Church through the demanding vocation of the priesthood, in an exercise of the priesthood’s unique form of spiritual paternity. The priests whose vocations he inspired are very unlikely to be the kind of men who would abuse anyone.

Second, John Paul II recovered the essential idea of the priesthood in the Catholic Church, which has long believed, but had begun to forget, that the priesthood is a matter of iconography rather than functionality: According to the Church’s understanding, Catholic priests are men who act in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”), making the power of the incarnate Word of God present through their preaching, making the body and blood of the Lord present through the Eucharist, and making the mercy of Christ present through the sacrament of Penance. In recovering this idea of the priesthood as a sacred vocation, rather than a bureaucratic career, John Paul II gave heart to priests who may have begun to flag in their commitments, as he did by writing an annual letter to priests every Holy Thursday and by inviting the priests of the world to share with him his 80th birthday in 2000.

Third, seminaries today are in far, far better shape than they were in 1978, thanks in no small part to John Paul II’s 1992 document on seminary reform, Pastores Dabo Vobis (“I Will Give You Shepherds”).

That is the proper historical context in which to evaluate John Paul II’s pontificate with regard to the priesthood. Now, having said that, it is also true that, as I wrote in the 2002 book The Courage to Be Catholic and more recently in The End and the Beginning, John Paul II and the Roman Curia were four months behind the information curve during the 2002 crisis in the United States, thanks to a remarkably inept performance by the Vatican nunciature in Washington. This allowed critics to promote the image of an uncaring pope, on which a lot of the media and the usual opponents of John Paul’s pontificate have been gnawing ever since for a variety of reasons. Yet the fact remains that when the pope finally knew, in April 2002, what he should have known in January 2002 (when the Boston crisis first broke), he took decisive action and made clear, as he put it to the American cardinals that month, that “there is no place in the priesthood for those who would harm the young.”

7. What are we to make of John Paul II and the sordid case of Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, a man whom the late pope supported and who turned out to have been a pathological personality?

As I wrote in The End and the Beginning, John Paul II was clearly deceived by Maciel, who was a master deceiver. The relevant questions here, in terms of John Paul II’s beatification and its judgment that he lived a life of heroic virtue, are whether John Paul II’s failure to see through Maciel’s deceptions was willful (i.e., he knew about Maciel’s perfidies and did nothing about the situation), or venal (i.e., he was “bought” by Maciel), or malicious (i.e., he knew that Maciel was a sociopathic fraud and didn’t care). There isn’t a shred of evidence that would sustain a positive answer to any of those questions. To even think that such could be the case is to utterly miss the character of the late pope.

To focus so much attention on Maciel at the time of John Paul II’s beatification, as if his case offered a privileged window into a 26-year pontificate that changed the history of the Church and the world, is rather like obsessing on the disastrous raid on Dieppe and the bombing of Dresden at Winston Churchill’s funeral. It’s grotesquely disproportionate, from any serious historical point of view.

— George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies. His two-volume biography of John Paul II comprises Witness to Hope (Harper Collins, 1999) and The End and the Beginning (Doubleday, 2010).

Pope Benedict XVI's Easter Message

Folks,

Pope Benedict XVI's Easter Message may be found by left clicking your mouse cursor on the aforementioned hyperlinked text.

The Scripture readings for Easter Sunday: Solemnity of the Resurrection of The Lord, The Mass of Easter Day may also be found by left clicking your mouse cursor on that hyperlinked text.

In resurrectione tua, Christe, caeli et terra laetentur!

Quote of the Day

Folks,

This came from a friend on Facebook:

It's not what death did to Jesus, it's what Jesus did to death!!

Pope Benedict XVI: God Conquers Death, Gives New Life

Folks,

The Vatican now has a You Tube video site. Just left click your mouse cursor on the aforementioned text to go there. Last evening's message may be found at the following hyperlinked text (the audio starts out in Italian, but an English narration is eventually overlayed):

Pope Benedict XVI: God Conquers Death, Gives New Life

The text of the Pope's speech at the end of the Stations of the Cross may be found here:

Tonight We Have Relived, Deep Within Our Hearts, the Drama of Jesus

Good Friday of the Lord's Passion

Isaiah 52:13-53:12

See, my servant shall prosper,
he shall be raised high and greatly exalted.
Even as many were amazed at him
so marred was his look beyond human semblance
and his appearance beyond that of the sons of manC
so shall he startle many nations,
because of him kings shall stand speechless;
for those who have not been told shall see,
those who have not heard shall ponder it.

Who would believe what we have heard?
To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
He grew up like a sapling before him,
like a shoot from the parched earth;
there was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him,
nor appearance that would attract us to him.
He was spurned and avoided by people,
a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity,
one of those from whom people hide their faces,
spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

Yet it was our infirmities that he bore,
our sufferings that he endured,
while we thought of him as stricken,
as one smitten by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our offenses,
crushed for our sins;
upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole,
by his stripes we were healed.
We had all gone astray like sheep,
each following his own way;
but the LORD laid upon him
the guilt of us all.

Though he was harshly treated, he submitted
and opened not his mouth;
like a lamb led to the slaughter
or a sheep before the shearers,
he was silent and opened not his mouth.
Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away,
and who would have thought any more of his destiny?
When he was cut off from the land of the living,
and smitten for the sin of his people,
a grave was assigned him among the wicked
and a burial place with evildoers,
though he had done no wrong
nor spoken any falsehood.
But the LORD was pleased
to crush him in infirmity.

If he gives his life as an offering for sin,
he shall see his descendants in a long life,
and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.

Because of his affliction
he shall see the light in fullness of days;
through his suffering, my servant shall justify many,
and their guilt he shall bear.
Therefore I will give him his portion among the great,
and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty,
because he surrendered himself to death
and was counted among the wicked;
and he shall take away the sins of many,
and win pardon for their offenses.

Tonight's Humor - My Position on Communists

Folks,

This just about summarizes my position regarding Communists.

Acronym for the Day - NUTS

Folks,

A friend on Facebook posted the following:

If you are going N.U.T.S., then you are "Not Using The Scriptures".

That alone explains why atheists, humanists and secularists are nuts!

GE Profits Jump 77% and Pays NO Taxes for 2010

Folks,

We now see the results of the collusion between the protoypical Beast (Obama) and the prototypical False Prophet (Immelt): GE Profits Soar 77%. I take liberties with those Biblical terms, for neither reprobate is smart enough to qualify as either character, but I am sure they would love to.

Here are the facts. GE's MS NBC worked tooth and nail to get that godless man of sin elected into the Oval Office. GE openly donates money to social service groups that perform abortions or refer women to abortion-providing organizations (and brags about its working relationship with Catholic apostate Sebelius, Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary). GE has entered into a contract with a firm in Great Britain to perform lethal experimentation on unborn babies and calls it "embryonic stem cell research". Hitler would blush with envy! GE supports homosexual filth within its various companies as equal rights (putting your reproductive organ into another man's orifice is NOT a human right; it's a dirty, filthy practice that spreads disease like AIDS, but certainly contributes to profits within GE Health Care). Thus, Obama has rewarded Immelt with an appointment as his "jobs czar" (or whatever term he is currently using). And while GE profits jump 77%, it pays NO taxes for 2010. Here you have corporate socialism that not even George W. Bush would dare equal even on his best day.

Oh, and one last thing before I forget it: the reactors that melted down at Fukushima Daiichi are a GE design - BWR 3's and 4's with Mark I Containments. Remember that the next time you see a GE ecomagination commercial with the elephant jumping around and the cows degassing biofuel. There's a lot of degassing going on with GE, and it all smells like crap.

The President a Chimp and Pelosi a Baboon

Folks,

There is much furor over a GOP politician in Orange County, CA having circulated a photograph of Obama as a chimpanzee:

This is surely no more offensive or racist than identifying Nancy Pelosi as the baboon on the left and Harry Reid as the one on the right in the photograph below:

Indeed, I think that both comparisons insult chimpanzees and baboons everywhere. Once again, however, Dr. Pournelle's commentary on this issue at his Chaos Manor web site is quite insightful:

More Umbrage!

From time to time I try to analyze my critical mail. I find it fascinating:

Umbrage

You are being ingenuous.

Comparing black people to chimps, just as comparing Jews to rats, Japanese as bucktoothed, or Mexicans as greasy, is offensive because the comparisons play into ethnic stereotypes which have historically been used to oppress these groups.

You can make a case that this is okay, that it is allowable to use this context in political advocacy, and that this is the same as portraying Bush negatively as a spoiled and privileged wasp (another ethnic stereotype). You cannot make the case though, that portraying a white man as a monkey is the same as portraying a black man as a monkey. It isn't. History and context matters.

Brian Gulino

-----

Actually, I know better in more ways than you think. If there are no racial differences then there can be no unique racial insults. There is no more truth to the assertion that Obama is closely related to chimpanzees than there is to the same assertion about Bush. I would have thought that fairly obvious to anyone who considered the matter. Are you asserting otherwise?

As to offensiveness, what has that to do with anything? Political rhetoric is intended to be offensive. There is no lack of offensive rhetoric. Most of it is openly said, not merely forwarded in an email to people supposed to be friends. If we are looking for political statements that offended their targets, we will have no problem finding them. Being the target of offensive rhetoric -- and cartoons -- is one of the burdens of seeking and holding public office.

As to making cases, you have made mine for me. The next step in this affair is to excuse rioting and violence because someone drew a cartoon. It doubt that will be long coming.

I am more interested in the term "allowable". What do we mean by that? Who determines what political advocacy is allowable? What is the penalty for saying that which is not allowed? Is it to be enforced by federal authorities? Shall we add that task to the duties of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tax, Firearms, and Explosives?

-----

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens. .  .  .

—Senator Edward Kennedy, July 1, 1987

-----

One presumes that is allowable since it was certainly allowed. Presumably it would not have been allowable had Senator Kennedy privately shown a copy of a letter he received from a correspondent who called Judge Bork a rat?

Ah well. Taking umbrage is allowable. A free society will give anyone ample access to vast quantities of umbrage. There's even some here for the rest of us. The incident makes me angry -- not with the elderly party volunteer official who forwarded an email to a few people on a private list because she thought it was funny and it was easy to do with a few clicks -- but at the supposed friend who decided he had to let the press know about this offensive cartoon, and how he got it, and from whom, and how he thought it offensive, and how virtuous he is for doing all this. That's the guy I want to avoid.

===========

There is a serious discussion in all this.

Many statements are offensive, some peculiarly to certain people. I hadn't thought about buck-tooth jokes about the Japanese in a long time, although every now and then I'll run across a Hollywood cartoon from the World War II era, in which buck-toothed Japanese are depicted in comic ineptness. I am of the "sticks and stones" view on most such matters in any event, and I find many of the "that was hurtful" operations to be cynical shakedowns to the benefit of professional umbrage takers. Perhaps I grew up in more tolerant times, but I heard most of my stock of Jewish jokes from the late Elmar Lanczos who delighted in collecting Jewish and Hungarian ethnic jokes, most of them in the poorest possible taste, which he only told to his friends, most of whom were gentiles. He would have considered it bad taste to tell such stories to friends he thought would be offended.

Bad taste is timeless, and most of us are guilty of lapses once in a while. If repeating a joke which is likely to be offensive to someone, somewhere, is immediate disqualification for public life, then we are doomed.

The serious point is this: what about hurtful statements that are true? As an example: it is simply true that there are retarded children in this world. It is simply true that mainstreaming them -- placing them in classrooms with children of normal intelligence -- can make education for the normal and bright kids much more difficult. It may be true that these difficulties can be overcome by proper teacher training. What is certainly true is that it's impossible to discuss the subject without making statements that will be considered offensive and hurtful, if not by the retarded, then by their parents or guardians, and said to be offensive by advocates whose motives may not be entirely altruistic. Discussion of entitlements to education cannot avoid this dilemma: are the normal and bright kids in a classroom entitled to the teacher's attention? Are they entitled to classrooms without distractions and disruptions? But again, the very mention of such things is hurtful.

But serious discussions of serious problems must take a back seat to the pretended horror of a forwarded email containing a cartoon of the President as a baby chimpanzee. We even have new photographs of the President, stony-faced, viewing the cartoon. I can think of more pressing matters for his attention. And I can think of more pressing matters for ours.

-----

The bottom line, folks, is this: if one is a Democrat (or a RINO or a neo-con), then one doesn't merit even the comparison to a chimp or baboon. An animal wouldn't do what a Democrat does.

Pontius Pilate and The TRUTH

Folks,

Consistent with today's post Pontius Pilate, Real Catholic TV also comments on this quintessential politician typifying everything that is Democratic, RINO and neo-con in its You Tube video, Pontius Pilate and The TRUTH. A liberal or progressive (whether Democrat, RINO or neo-con) will always and forever ask, "Truth? What is Truth?" while they look eternal Truth in the face. And then they will give in to the "peepul" with their cries of "Crucifige eum! Crucifige eum!" and crucify that same Truth. But they can't win, for Truth is always resurrected.

We see the results of Democracy in the courtyard of Pontius Pilate, but Democracy itself is defeated three days later. Hallelujah!

Pontius Pilate

Folks,

I received the following from a Protestant e-mail service to which I subscribe simply because of its analysis of the meaning of certain key words written in the original Greek text of the New Testament. Today's message on Pontius Pilate merits sharing. Please also do take the time to read "Screen Pilates: Rod Steiger" at the "The American Catholic" blog site by copying and pasting the following URL address into the address field of your internet browser:

http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/04/20/rod-steiger-as-pilate/

As the reader will soon discover, Pontius Pilate is the typical liberal progressive Democrat politician: it ain't about liberty, but about appeasing the mob. Thus we have Democracy - two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner, in this case our Lord Jesus Christ. "Crucifige eum! Crucifige eum!" Populus clamavit.

'Not Guilty' by Rick Renner

[Pilate] said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching the things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

-Luke 23:14-16

When Jesus was returned to Pilate's court, Pilate assembled the chief priests and rulers; then he told them, "Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching the things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him."

Notice Pilate said he had "examined" Jesus. This Greek word, anakrinas, means to examine closely, to scrutinize, or to judge judicially. You must recall that Pilate was the chief legal authority of the land. He knew Roman law and was invested with power to see that Roman law was kept. From a judicial standpoint, he couldn't find a single crime Jesus had committed. Perhaps Jesus had broken some Jewish religious law, but Pilate wasn't a Jew and couldn't care less about Jewish law. From a purely legal standpoint, Jesus wasn't guilty. To add weight to his action, Pilate backed his view by saying, "Herod has arrived at the same conclusion as I have: This Man has committed no legal offense."

Knowing that the religious leaders were bent on seeing the shedding of Jesus' blood, Pilate offered to chastise Jesus, hoping this would appease the bloody appetite of the mob. Had this offer been accepted, the beating would have been minor; however, it would have been viewed as a warning that Jesus needed to limit His activities.

Then Pilate announced that after Jesus was chastised, he would "release" Him. When the mob heard the word "release," they jumped on the chance to reverse Pilate's decision. You see, it was a custom at this particular time of the year for one prisoner to be "released" from prison as a favor to the people. Because Israel hated being occupied by Rome, many Jewish sons fought like "freedom fighters" to overthrow Roman rule. Therefore, each year when it came time for this big event, all of Jerusalem waited with anticipation to see which prisoner would be released.

By choosing to "release" Jesus at this moment, it was as if Pilate was making the choice himself which prisoner would be released - and his choice was Jesus. When the people heard of Pilate's decision, they cried out, "Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison)" (Luke 23:18,19).

Who was Barabbas? He was a notorious rabble-rouser who had been proven guilty of "sedition" in the city of Jerusalem. What is "sedition"? It comes from stasis, the old Greek word for treason, which refers to the deliberate attempt to overthrow the government or to kill a head of state.

It is interesting that treason was the very charge the Jewish leaders brought against Jesus when they accused Him of claiming to be king! However, in the case of Barabbas, the charge was real, for he had led a volatile insurrection against the government that resulted in a massacre. Nevertheless, Barabbas' act of bravery, although illegal and murderous, made him a hero in the minds of the local population.

Luke informs us that this Barabbas was so dangerous that they "cast" him into prison. The word "cast" is the Greek word ballo, meaning to throw, which suggests the Roman authorities wasted no time in hurling this low-level bandit into jail for the role he played in this bloody uprising. The Roman authorities wanted him off the streets and locked up forever!

Luke 23:20,21 says, "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him." The word "willing" is the Greek word thelo. It would be better translated, "Pilate therefore, wishing, longing, or desiring to release Jesus." Pilate searched for a way to set Jesus free, but the multitude screamed for crucifixion.

This was the first time crucifixion had been specially demanded by the crowd. Luke says the angry mob "cried" for Jesus to be crucified. The word "cried" is the word epiphoneo, and it means to shout, to scream, to yell, to shriek, or to screech. The Greek tense means they were hysterically screaming and shrieking at the top of their voices - totally out of control and without pause.

Pilate appealed to them again, "Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go" (Luke 23:22). Again the Roman governor hoped that a beating might satisfy the people's bloody hunger, but "they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed"(v. 23).

The words "they were instant" is the Greek word epikeima, a compound of the words epi and keimai. The word epi means upon, and the word keimai means to lay something down. When compounded together, this word meant that the people began to pile evidence on top of Pilate, nearly burying him in reasons why Jesus had to be crucified. To finish this quarrel, they threatened him, saying, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar" (John 19:12).

Pilate was taken aback by the threat of treason these Jewish leaders were bringing against him. Once he heard these words, he knew they had him in a trap - and there was only one way legally for him to get out of the mess he was in. He had to make a choice: He could either set Jesus free and sacrifice his own political career, or he could deliver Jesus to be crucified and thus save himself.

When confronted with these two stark choices, Pilate decided to sacrifice Jesus and save himself. But as he turned Jesus over to the masses, Pilate first wanted to make it clear to everyone who was listening that he didn't agree with what they were doing. This is why Matthew 27:24 tells us, "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."

Pay careful attention to the fact that Pilate "took water, and washed his hands." Water, of course, is symbolic of a cleansing agent, and hands are symbolic of our lives. For instance, with our hands we touch people, we work, we make money - in fact, nearly everything we do in life, we do with our hands. This is why Paul told us to "lift up holy hands" when we pray and worship (1 Timothy 2:8). When we lift our hands to God, it is the same as lifting our entire lives before Him, because our hands represent our lives.

In Bible times, the washing of hands was a ritual often used symbolically for the removal of one's guilt. So when Pilate washed his hands in that basin of water and publicly declared, "I am clear of all guilt regarding the blood of this just person!" he was demonstrating what he believed to be his total innocence in this matter.

As long as Pontius Pilate thought he could stand with Jesus and keep his own position as well, he protected Jesus. But the moment Pilate realized that saving Jesus would mean he would have to sacrifice his own position in life, he quickly changed his tune and gave in to the demands of the unsaved mob who were screaming all around him.

Can you think of times in your own life when your walk with Jesus put you in an unpopular position with your peers? What did you do when you realized your commitment to the Lord was going to jeopardize your job or your status with your friends? Did you sacrifice your friendship and your status, or did you sacrifice your commitment to the Lord?

Let's make a decision today to never make the mistake of sacrificing our relationship with Jesus for other people or other things. Instead, let's resolve to stand by Jesus regardless of the situation or the personal cost we may have to pay for staying faithful to Him.

Remember what Jesus said: "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39 NIV ) . When we hang on to the wrong things, our wrong choices always costs us the most. On the other hand, when we let go of things we count dear and choose to give everything we have to Jesus, we always end up with more! So let's be sure to stand by Jesus regardless of what we may have to temporarily lose or lay down!

Lord, forgive me for the times I've denied You and the principles of Your Word because I was afraid I'd jeopardize my popularity if I remained faithful to You. I am truly sorry for this, and I repent for my wrong behavior today. The next time I'm put on the spot and required to make this kind of choice, please help me put aside any worry about saving my own popularity or reputation and make the decision that honors You.

I pray this in Jesus' name!

I confess that living for Jesus Christ is the most important thing in my life. I will stand for Him, live for Him, speak up for Him, and never back down. Regardless of the pressure that  comes to push me away from this rock-solid position, I will not move from my wholehearted commitment to Jesus. His power strengthens me and helps me remain strong even in the face of opposition and conflict!

I declare this by faith in Jesus' name!

1. Can you think of a time when you sacrificed your relationship with Jesus in order to save yourself a little pain from ridicule or rejection?

2. How did you feel after you did this? Were you regretful that you didn't stand tall in your commitment to the Lord?

3. What are you going to do the next time you find yourself in such a situation? What do you need to start doing now to make sure you will be strong enough to resist that temptation the next time you face it?

Tonight's Humor - A Reader's Cat Repenting of Shredding the Couch?

Folks,

In response to Saturday's post, Catholic Kitty Goes to Confession, a reader stated, "I need to baptize my Bengal cat, and get her to confession, she's done way to much scratching of furniture lately!" One wonders from the photo below if he has had more success than he might have originally envisioned.

;-)

Judas Iscariot - The Classical Liberal

Folks,

Today's Gospel Reading is from John 12:1-11. Note in this story that Judas Iscariot is the only one who objects to Mary annointing Jesus' feet with costly oil, saying that the oil could have been sold for 300 days' wages to help the poor. He says what every godless liberal Democrat says: don't honor God, but redistribute wealth to the poor instead. And why does he say this? Scripture tells that he said this because being a thief, he cared nothing for the poor but would steal from the contributions in the money bag, just as every Democrat today lies about helping the poor, and instead steals tax revenue for whatever pork-barrel perk is in his financial interest. Indeed, to be a Democrat and a Christian or a Jew is to be a Judas Iscariot. Thieves, liars, betrayers and murderers - the lot of them (and the same goes for RINOs and neo-cons; let there be no prejudice here at this blogsite!)

Six days before Passover Jesus came to Bethany,
where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served,
while Lazarus was one of those reclining at table with him.
Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil
made from genuine aromatic nard
and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair;
the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
Then Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples,
and the one who would betray him, said,
“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages
and given to the poor?”
He said this not because he cared about the poor
but because he was a thief and held the money bag
and used to steal the contributions.
So Jesus said, “Leave her alone.
Let her keep this for the day of my burial.
You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

The large crowd of the Jews found out that he was there and came,
not only because of him, but also to see Lazarus,
whom he had raised from the dead.
And the chief priests plotted to kill Lazarus too,
because many of the Jews were turning away
and believing in Jesus because of him.

Fight Like a Girl

Folks,

I encourage everyone to view Sarah Palin's recent speech in Madison, Wisconsin on You Tube, and then read the commentary on the same over at The American Catholic blogsite:

Palin: "Fight Like a Girl"

As I commented at that blogsite, it looks like the Democrat pseudo-Catholics have forgotten the lesson of Judith 14:11-19 (it's also too bad that Judith is one of the Sacred Books which Martin Luther threw out of the Protestant Bible - so much imagery and meaning are otherwise lost). It took a woman then to fight the good fight. And so today. I cannot wait till I hear the howl of consternation and see the renting of tunics as another anti-christ lies deposed and headless (speaking figuratively, of course – no physical violence is either encouraged or desired). The defeat of Barack Hussein Obama draws nigh; let him consider what happened to the neck of his spiritual forefather Holofernes (again, figuratively speaking, of course).

At daybreak they hung the head of Holofernes on the wall. Then all the Israelite men took up their arms and went to the slopes of the mountain. When the Assyrians saw them, they notified their captains; these, in turn, went to the generals and division leaders and all their other commanders. They came to the tent of Holofernes and said to the one in charge of all his things, “Waken our master, for the slaves have dared come down to give us battle, to their utter destruction.” Bagoas went in, and knocked at the entry of the tent, presuming that he was sleeping with Judith. As no one answered, he parted the curtains, entered the bedroom, and found him lying on the floor, a headless corpse. He broke into a loud clamor of weeping, groaning, and howling, and rent his garments. Then he entered the tent where Judith had her quarters; and, not finding her, he rushed out to the troops and cried: “The slaves have duped us! A single Hebrew woman has brought disgrace on the house of King Nebuchadnezzar. Here is Holofernes headless on the ground!” When the commanders of the Assyrian army heard these words, they rent their tunics and were seized with consternation. Loud screaming and howling arose in the camp.

Latrobe Botched Abortion April 16, 2011

Folks,

Liberal Democracy strikes again! Another baby is murdered and another would-be mother is hospitalized. This is the lesson of 1st Samuel chapter 8. We wanted to be like other nations, and so we are. Babies and would-be mothers pay the price.

Latrobe Botched Abortion April 16, 2011

We had a chilling reminder of why we are at the 3220 Latrobe abortion mill today, the next to the last day of the 40 Days for Life Spring Campaign. We are witnesses, prayer warriors standing in the gap for our preborn brothers and sisters and for the women who are deceived by the Culture of Death.  It started as a typical Saturday with many coming from South Carolina for abortion.  Why so many from SC? It is because next to the facility they operate a call center whose job it is to lure women from our neighboring states to come to their facility with promise of gas money. I've seen license plates from Tennesee, Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina.  We prayed, spoke about the wonderful news that 40 babies were saved (that we know of), sang happy birthday to them and then we prayed some more.  About the 3 o'clock hour our worst fears were seen as a fire truck entered the parking lot followed a few minutes later by the paramedics. Another botched abortion and another mother injured at this facility of death! And there we were praying fervently for the young woman injured and her poor baby who'd lost his life today. So tonight let us keep this woman in prayer. Let us pray for her healing physically, emotionally and spiritually. Let us especially pray for the spiritually healing and the grace to turn her life over to Jesus! Here is a link to the video that we took.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWIDq-AJbU

Catholic Kitty Goes to Confession

Folks,

Here is today's humor - enjoy!

Pro-lifer: Blacks 'Exterminating' Themselves

Folks,

Apparently I was NOT off-base when I stated in previous blog posts that blacks, in being Democrats, are committing racial suicide:

Pro-lifer: Blacks 'Exterminating' Themselves

According to this article by Russ Jones at One News Now, "Reports indicate abortion is the leading cause of death within the African-American community in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973 -- the year of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade -- 13 million African-American lives have been lost to abortion."  That's 13 million blacks murdered and the total population of blacks in the US in 2010 was 39 million, which means that blacks have put to the sword (er, I mean the medical scapel or vacuum cleaner) the equivalent of 33% of their population total.

Another interesting statistic to consider in all this is how many abortions are black abortions out of the total number of abortions. Well, the total number since Roe v Wade is now nigh unto 60 million murders. 39 million black abortions is just about two thirds of the total number. How is that NOT self-suicide and racial genocide? But I am the one accused of being prejudiced because I oppose that godless man of sin in the Oval Office who aids and abets the genocide of his own race.

Over two babies every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year since 1973 are being murdered by liberalism, progressivism and Democracy - two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner, in this case, the corpses of the unborn. And every two of three of those corpses are black.

When you know the truth, then the truth can set you free, but you must believe.

The View of the World According to the White House

Folks,

The following is from Dr. Pournelle at the Chaos Manor web site:

The View of the World According to the White House

The President has made his speech.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/13/text-of-obama-speech-on-the-deficit/

It makes it very clear: the President's view is that there is very little needless spending. We need all those programs, and we can't afford to cut them very much. The levels of federal spending that we endured for the first centuries of our Republic are far too small, and returning to those levels will be a disaster.

The only solution to the problem is to raise taxes, mostly on the rich. We have entitlements, and those entitled are entitled, and nothing should be cut out. It is the responsibility of the government to take care of those who need to be taken care of, and it is the obligation of those who can afford it to pay government employees to provide that care. This is the way the world works, this is what will be, and we refuse to make tax expenditures -- which is the new phrase for cutting taxes -- so long as there are unmet needs. Since the current taxes will not cover all our needs, we will raise taxes. And if there are more needs we will spend more. This is the world. Get used to it.

Perhaps that is an overly harsh reading of the speech, but I am in the midst of computing my taxes, and I am not in a charitable mood. Apologies.

Holy See to the UN on Population and Development

Folks,

The statement delivered Tuesday by Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, to the 44th Session of the Commission on Population and Development may be found here:

Fertility, Reproductive Health and Development

The Archbishop points out in his speech the following:

"Unfortunately many discussions in the present day continue to be led by a false notion that, in the context of population growth, the very act of giving life is something to be feared rather than affirmed. Such thinking is based on a radical individualism which sees human reproduction as a commodity that must be regulated and improved in order to encourage greater market efficiency and development. How can such a view be consistent with the objectives of the United Nations? Put most candidly, it cannot...."

"...This distorted world-view regards the poor as a problem to be commoditized and managed as if they were inconsequential objects rather than as unique persons with innate dignity and worth who require the full commitment of the international community to provide assistance so that they can realize their full potential."

-----

The whole impetus of population control on the part of today's liberals, progressives, secularists, humanists, environmentalists and athiests is NOT the welfare of the human race. Indeed, they parade around with words like social justice and the common good, but the desires of their hearts and the work of their hands are far from those lofty ideals. Rather, their intent is the extermination of whole societies so that a certain wealthy elite - almost always liberal - can live as it wishes. They care not one iota for either man as having been created in the image and likeness of God, or the Earth as a garden over which God gave man stewardship. Theirs is none other than the lie that Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden: "You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of [of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."

Let us think about it. Contraception, abortion and homosexuality have only one end - no progeny, that is to say, no continuance of the human race. And Satan hates the human race because man is created in God's image and likeness, because God became man, and because God loved man so much that He died on a Cross to save man from sin. Satan can't stand that, so Satan's solution is the extermination of the human species.

We know these things to be true because the name Satan in Hebrew means "Accuser" and the name Devil in Greek means "Slanderer." This is the one who masquerades as "Lucifer" which in Latin means "Light-Bearer," and nothing better could describe liberals mouthing words like social justice and the common good while seeking humanity's extermination.

Thought for the Day

Folks,

The following occurred to me from a comment in the combox to one of the many posts over at "The American Catholic" blogiste, so I cannot claim this as an original thought:

"Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, infanticide of the unborn, perfidy, and idolatry are NOT human rights. They are SIN and the wages of sin are still death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."

The Forgotten Man - Jon McNaughton

Folks,

Artist Jon McNaughton painted the following and his video excerpt gives all the explanation necessary. It is past time for the man of godless wickedness, depravity, idolatry, homosexual filth and disease, and murder of the unborn to be ejected from the Oval Office. Israel was deported to Assyria and Judah to Babylon for crimes such as these. Wicked King Manasseh was led away into captivity by a ring through his nose for defying God (2nd Chronicles 33). And God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) - let Obama NOT forget that. As Father Corapi has often said, God is NOT a disinterested spectator in the events of human affairs. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7). We have sown the whirlwind and the time has come to reap.

The Forgotten Man - Jon McNaughton

Eye-Witness Account of "The Preferred Women’s Health Center"

Folks,

The following is a separate eye-witness account of our prayer vigil at the abortion clinic yesterday. The people who run this abortion clinic are the same as the spiritual forefathers, the Nazis. And that godless man of doom, destruction and death, Barack Hussein Obama, openly supports them. It is no coincidence that black gangster thugs guard the abortion clinic, for it is a black gangster thug who occupies the Oval Office. How ironic this is, given that the abortion rate among black women is eight times that among white women, and how racially suicidal. "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." (PS, I am NOT racially prejudiced; rather, I am appalled that black people, or at least certain black people including the President of these United States, would support, aid and abet the genocide of their own race.)

Good morning. I hope that your Lenten season is filled with spiritual blessings!

This past Saturday, I was a witness to a special facet of the “culture of death” for the first time in my life. It has weighed heavily on my heart which is why I want to share my observations and to request your support. This past weekend’s second reading from the Letter of Saint Paul to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:8-14) includes the following: “Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.”

At 3220 Latrobe Drive, Charlotte, there is a building called A Preferred Women’s Health Center where abortions are performed. To the left of this building is the Call Center where abortions are scheduled. The Call Center is a nondescript building with closed blinds. It almost appeared to be deserted. The abortion clinic is hidden behind tall trees so that it is difficult to see the entrance. It also seems to have closed blinds. There were two males “protecting” the vehicles, most of which had South Carolina license plates, in the clinic’s parking lot. While we prayed the Rosary, I heard loud music coming from the parking lot as if to “drown” us out. There is a walkway between the parking lots of the Call Center and abortion clinic so that staff and “customers” do not have to walk on the sidewalk. Staff from both buildings appeared to be on the defensive. One customer who was driving a young woman scheduled for an abortion repeatedly cried, “SHUT UP!,” as a witness implored the young woman, “Please don’t do this; we can help you.” Unfortunately, they went into the clinic. Another time, four girls walked into the clinic and three came out, leaving their “friend” at the mercy of people they probably didn’t know. I would be afraid to leave anyone alone in a building with closed blinds that invite darkness and cover secrets. The three girls returned but I don’t know what happened to the child who may have ended her pregnancy.

My observation is that the abortionists, staff, drivers to the clinic, those having abortions, and the males “protecting” the parking lot know that what they are involved with is wrong. How do I know this? The buildings have closed blinds. The clinic is hidden behind tall trees away from main highways. Customers are verbally violent. Staff are on the defensive. I describe it as “sneaking around.” I heard one female staff member from the Call Center say to a witness, “Can’t we agree to disagree?” What does that mean? As Catholics, it is our responsibility to defend those who cannot defend themselves, our littlest sisters and brothers. We have no choice but to disagree with those who support and participate in abortions.

At a retreat that I attended, a priest made this observation: While we kill our children through abortions, the terrorists live in a culture that does not condone abortions. In the future, who will defend our country against the terrorists?

Immaculata Prayer Ministry members: Our main purpose is to pray for an increase in Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life. Is it possible that an abortion will cut off the life of a future priest, brother, or sister? This Saturday, April 9, please join members of the Knights of Columbus at the abortion clinic for an hour or two during the 40 Days for Life Campaign. Please pray the Rosary, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and intercessory prayers for conversion of hearts. Last Saturday, I received a “40DaysForLife.com” wristband which I continue to wear. I know that you’re busy. I also know that your prayers are powerful! God listens to you. He always listens to you.

There are several ways to get to 3220 Latrobe Drive from St. Thomas Aquinas (about a 15-20 minute drive). I took a left on University City Boulevard, a left on N. Tryon Street, a left on W. Eastway Drive which turns into N. Wendover Road, and a right on Latrobe Drive (it comes soon after Monroe Road). Keep driving on Latrobe until you get to 3220 which is on the left. We parked on the right side of the street. I plan to witness on Saturday afternoon.

Thank you and have a blessed day,

XXXXX

The Gangsters Guarding the Abortion Clinic

Folks,

The photographs of this morning's prayer vigil at the "Preferred Woman's Health Center" on 3220 Latrobe Drive in Charlotte, NC speak for themselves. Would you go into a hospital or clinic guarded by thugs like these? (BTW, is the second thug on the right in the first photo holding a revolver in his hand? He later on did point his finger at me and make the imitation of a gun going off.)

The next photograph depicts our prayer warriors. Whom do you trust?

Tonight's Humor - My Kind of Pink Power

Folks,

Note the crucifix on a bracelet wrapped around the young lady's wrist. God, Guns and Guts - pink power at its finest!

G.K. Chesterton on Atheism

Folks,

In continuing to debunk the atheist world view, let us consider what GK Chesterton has to say:

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists."

"I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification."

"There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life."

"There is no bigot like the atheist."

"The atheist is not interested in anything except attacks on atheism."

"Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle."

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

"The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world."

"Where people stop believing the truth, they do not start to believe in nothing, they start to believe in anything." [Hence today's liberalism]

"The modern habit of saying, 'Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me'--the habit of saying this is mere weak mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon."

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."

Atheist Misconception #6: "I Have an Intellectual Problem

Folks,

The following text is from Josh McDowell's book, "The New evidence that Demands a Verdict":

The rejection of Christ is so often not so much of the "mind," but of the "will"; not so much "I can't," but "I won't."

I have met many people with intellectual excuses, but few (albeit some) with intellectual problems. Excuses can cover a multitude of reasons. I greatly respect one who has taken time to investigate the claims of Christ and concludes he just can't believe. I have a rapport with a person who knows why he doesn't believe (factually and historically), for I know why I believe (factually and historically). This gives us common ground (though different conclusions).

I have found that most people reject Christ for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Ignorance: Romans 1:18-23 (often self-imposed), Matthew 22:29
2. Pride: John 5:40-44
3. Moral issues: John 3:19, 20

I once counseled a person who was fed up with Christianity because she believed it was not historical and there was just nothing to it factually. She had convinced everyone that she had searched and, as the result of her university studies, had found profound intellectual problems. one after another failed to persuade her of the truth about Christ because they approached her intellectually to answer her many questions.

I listened and then asked several questions. Within thirty minutes she admitted she had fooled everyone and that she developed these intellectual doubts in order to excuse her moral life.

One needs to answer the basic problem or real question - not the surface detour that often manifests itself.

A student at a New England university said he had an intellectual problem with Christianity and therefore just could not accept Christ as Savior. "Why can't you believe?" I asked. He replied, "The New Testament is not reliable." I then asked, "If I demonstrate to you that the New Testament is one of the most reliable pieces of literature of antiquity, will you believe?" He retorted, "No!" "You don't have a problem with your mind, but with your will," I answered.

A graduate student at the same university, after a lecture on "The Resurrection: Hoax or History?" bombarded me with questions intermingled with accusations (later I found out he did this with most Christian speakers). Finally, after forty-five minutes of dialogue I asked him, "If I prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was raised from the dead and is the Son of God, will you consider Him?" The immediate and emphatic reply was "No!"

Michael Green cites Aldous Huxley, the atheist, who has destroyed the beliefs of many and has been hailed as a great intellect. Huxley admits his own biases (Ends and means, pp. 270ff.) when he says:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning: consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. the philosopher who find no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. (Green, RW, 36)

Bertrand Russell is an example of an intelligent atheist who did not give careful examination to the evidence of Christianity. In his essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, it is obvious that he has not even considered the evidence of and for the resurrection of Jesus and his remarks cast doubt as to whether he has even glanced at the New Testament. It seems incongruous that a man would not deal with the resurrection in great detail since it is the foundation of Christianity. (Green, RW, 36)

Jesus said: "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority" (John 7:17).

If any person comes to the claims of Jesus Christ wanting to know if they are true, willing to follow His teachings if they are true, he or she will know. But one cannot come unwilling to accept, and expect to find out.

Pascal, the French philosopher, writes: "The evidence of God's existence and His gift is more than compelling, but those who insist that they have no need of Him or it will always find ways to discount the offer." (Pascal, P, n.p.)

So there we have it - the three reasons for atheism:

1. Ignorance
2. Pride
3. Morality

I would wager that with today's sexual promiscuity, number 3 ranks highest. Most are atheists because they want to rut in heat like baboons without consequence; yet these self-same people, unable to exercise self-control and give up the titillation of their genitals, dare to call themselves "intellectual". However, let us never discount the power of either human pride or human ignorance. While God has placed limits on man's intelligence, He has placed absolutely no limits on man's stupidity - the one capital offense for which nature provides no appeal.

Reader Request for Comment on NY Times Article About Fukushima Daiichi

Folks,

A reader asked me to comment on an article in today’s NY Times entitled, U.S. Sees Array of New Threats at Japan’s Nuclear Plant, which can be accessed by copying and pasting the following URL address into the address field of your web browser:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html?_r=2&hp

Please note that this article goes on for two web pages, and to see the second web page, you will have to left click your mouse cursor on the “NEXT PAGE” button at the bottom right of the web page accessed from the link provided above.

First, I am usually reluctant to cite anything from the NY Times, given its inherent liberal, progressive Democrat bias and its overt support for and ingratiation with the Obamanation of Desolation. However, in this particular case, I find most of the article to be relatively accurate. I do, however, have some comments:

The article mentions a “confidential March 26th assessment” from the NRC for which a web link is not provided and which I cannot currently locate on the NRC’s web site. That the report is kept confidential from the general public, yet the NY Times has access to it is disturbing.

The article “…cites the possibility of explosions inside the containment structures due to the release of hydrogen and oxygen from seawater pumped into the reactors…” After this long a period of time, I do not think it is likely that temperatures could get high enough to support a chemical reaction between zircalloy and water that would continue to generate hydrogen gas from the decomposition of water. The zirconium in zircalloy (which is used as the fuel rod material within which the uranium dioxide pellets are stacked) can reactor with water as follows:

Zr + 2 H2O → ZrO2 + 2H2

This reaction occurs at 2200 F and such a temperature this long since operation at power is unlikely, but possible. If salt (from emergency salt water injection) has plated out on fuel rods and insulated them, then decay heat can cause fuel rod temperature to continue to rise.

The article states, “If the fuel continues to heat and melt because of ineffective cooling, some nuclear experts say, that could also leave a radioactive mass that could stay molten for an extended period.” That is possible, but again not very likely given the massive amounts of water (both salt and fresh) that have been injected into primary containment.

The article “… also suggests that fragments or particles of nuclear fuel from spent fuel pools above the reactors were blown ‘up to one mile from the units,’ and that pieces of highly radioactive material fell between two units and had to be ‘bulldozed over,’ presumably to protect workers at the site.” While the one mile high figure seems exaggerated, it is almost inevitable that highly radioactive material fell between two units. Well that material has already been bulldozed over, or will be remains to be determined.

The article quotes David Lochbaum from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Mr. Lochbaum and the organization for which he works are decidedly anti-nuclear in sentiment. Furthermore, UCS is hardly a union of scientists; it is more appropriately characterized as a gang of enviro-activitists who deify Earth to the level of goddess while insisting on population control via contraception and abortion, human beings being an aberration on the surface of the planet. That being said, in this case, Mr. Lochbaum's pessimism (“They could still have more damage in a big way if some of these things don’t work out for them”) should be judged on its merits (that’s a real possibility) and not on his association for eco-wackism. But let it be noted that NIRS, WISE, UCS, Greenpeace and the rest of the eco-nazis are overjoyed at what has happened at Fukushima Daiichi. However, just as the eco-nazis worship the false goddess called Gaia, so do pro-nuclear activists commit similar idolatry by worshipping the engineering and technological work of the hands of man. So while they are at opposite pole ends, they end up being quite alike.

The second page of the article claims that there is likely no water level within reactor number 1. This claim has yet to be determined factually true. It is possible that at all affected reactors (1 through 3) core cooling geometry is significantly compromised.

The article quotes Margaret Harding as a former reactor designer at GE. She was actually a QA supervisor who (I was told) was part of a class action law suit against GE for apparent discrimination against promotion of females. I am not privy to the details nor do I want to be, so don't tell me; I only know what's in the public domain:

http://www.swhlegal.com/data/public/General_Electric_Gender_Discrimination_Class_Action_-_Settlement_Statement-63085-1.pdf

Ms. Harding's publicly available status at Linked-In states that she performed core and fuel designs for every BWR in operation. Please see:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/margaretharding

I don't think she did designs for Reactor Pressure Vessels, Nuclear Steam Supply Systems or Balance of Plant Systems, but then again, I really wouldn't know. Nevertheless, her statement should be heeded: “If I were in the Japanese’s shoes, I’d be very reluctant to have tons and tons of water sitting in a containment whose structural integrity hasn’t been checked since the earthquake.”

The article states that the number 4 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi suffered a hydrogen explosion early in the Japanese crisis. As I recall, the number 4 reactor was completely defueled and all fuel in the elevated spent fuel pool. It appears that loss of spent fuel pool cooling resulted in elevated temperatures and a zirc-water reaction that generated hydrogen gas which then detonated. When the earthquake-tsunami event first occurred, the elevated spent fuel pool design and the possibility for subsequent hydrogen generation were one of the first things about which I was concerned. I take no pleasure in being confirmed correct.

The GE BWR Mark I containment design – and especially elevated spent fuel pools in Marks I, II, and III – are seriously flawed. This was typical of the GE minimalist approach in the 1950s, 60s and 70s that saw the company dump chemical toxins willy-nilly into the environment from its many other industries (e.g., Pittsfield, MA and Schenectady, NY to name but two), and economically enslaving local towns and cities to its industrial facilities that it would later uproot, leaving a polluted, devastated and impoverished community behind. For years afterwards the Housatonic and Hudson Rivers had to be dredged to remove the chemical poisons left behind by GE greed and idolatry. Silver Lake in Pittsfield, MA is still lifeless from GE’s non-defunct transformer business in that town. And just as GE polluted the local ecology back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, so today does it pollute the moral environment with the bias that its CEO, Jeff Immelt, has in favor of the worst and most pro-abortion President to ever occupy the Oval Office, and with its open and unabashed support of abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. Its Health Care division has entered into a contract with Geron to murder unborn babies:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ge_subsidiary_to_use_human_embryonic_stem_cells_for_drug_testing/#

The effects of the one-two punch of the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami on Fukushima Daiichi are horrible, and the mess created by that one-two punch may take decades if not a century to clean up. I pray for the Japenese people, but we should keep this in perspective. The loss of life from the direct effects of the earthquake and tsunami, from dam collapses and from uncontrolled explosions and fires at chemical refineries and storage tanks for oil and natural gas dwarf anything happening at Fukushima Daiichi. The chemical poisons alone are far more hazardous, injurious and prevelant in the environment, but the liberal news media won't report on that. People can be persuaded to give up far safer nuclear power, but no one will give up his fossil fueled vehicle no matter how many carcinogenic toxins are dumped into the environment by the burning tanks in Japan.