jump to navigation

LA Times explains why no one listens to them anymore August 25, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

The headline of the Op-Ed reads: “2012 Campaign: Rick Perry and a uniquely anti-gay GOP field?”  I guess the question mark is supposed to change into a journalistic “maybe” what is actually argued as a verifiable certainty in the op-ed (with, again, the blending of news and opinion at a “mainstream” (left wing) “news” organization).  The one intolerable sin of the left is not to acquiesce to their fluid, non-morality based, relativistic view of “tolerance.” Perry and others think that homosexuality is, at root, immoral.  But look at how the LA Times spits on their (and your) traditional Christian morality:

You might think as much following the revelation by reporter Mark Benjamin that Republican front-runner and Texas Gov. Rick Perry once compared, in writing, homosexuality to alcoholism. [That doesn’t bother me in the slightest, I’ve done the same here, and so have others.  In fact, the connections between all manner of sexual sin and other forms of addiction (as sexual sins tend to be highly addicting, constituting, even, a “lifestyle”) are profound]Benjamin writes at Time magazine’s Swampland blog:

Since leaping into the GOP presidential race, Texas Gov. Rick Perry hasn’t been asked if he thinks gays are born or made. But in a little-noticed passage in his first book, “On My Honor,” a encomium on the Boy Scouts published in 2008, Perry also drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism. “Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” he wrote. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.”[gays make a choice to have sex outside marriage, as do  many heterosexuals, sadly.  Many also choose to commit many other sins, and the fact that “we are born that way,” predisposed to sin with our fallen natures, does not change the fact that we, all of us, freely choose sin over Grace]

…….

This comes after former front-runner Michele Bachmann’s widely advertised connection to homosexual reparative therapy, also known as “pray the gay away,” not to mention Rick Santorum’s comments years ago on “man on dog” sex. [I’m not laughing, that, and far worse, is on the “tolerant” agenda] Even Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts who appears suspiciously moderate to mainstream Republican voters, called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. [And everywhere “gay marriage” has come up for a vote, it has lost, generally badly.  It has only been forced on populations by over-weening activist judges and similarly behaving legislatures.  Perry and the others are far more in accord with the views of most Americans that is the author of this piece, judging by his tone]

Could this be the biggest gay-bashing election in recent history? [they’re not “bashing,” they are defending traditional values under constant assault from your side, Mr. Author] Doubtful, since President George W. Bush set such a high bar in 2004. Quite the contrary: Call me an optimist, but I see such highly publicized gay-baiting as a positive development.  [Watch how the author tries to create opinion, next, it is a textbook in communist Antonio Gramsci/Saul Alinsky tactics]

Why? Not so long ago, the virulently homophobic views offered by some candidates were treated almost as viable alternatives to the positions taken by less anti-gay politicians. [First, pick the target.  Then freeze it, then polarize it.  This author, in a respectable “newsopinionpaper, just called the majority of Americans bigots, because of legitimate concerns regarding the homosexual lobby’s aggressive campaigns to redefine marriage and demand not just tolerance, but society-wide embrace and near-worship of what were 10-15 years ago views so extreme, nobody took them seriously.]  It was as if all those views came from the same menu of Reasonable Points of View Worth Debating. [This is just a stupid statement] Now, the radical ideas espoused by Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and others are held up not for genuine consideration but for scorn (notwithstanding the last GOP debate in Iowa).  [By whom?  Not by the large majority of Americans.  They are scorned by the isolated bubble cultures on the east and west coast, where concentrated locales of extreme, often hedonistic opinion and lifestyle have formed that are markedly hostile to traditional American governance AND morals.  This author is, then, preaching to a narrow audience, the “converted.”]Perry’s and Bachmann’s views aren’t weighed against President Obama’s “evolving” stance on same-sex marriage; rather, they are simply ridiculed. [Again, this blowhard is trying to create opinion.  As Goebbel’s said, if a lie is repeated oft enough, it becomes the truth] It says as much about our society as it does the candidates. [Yes, that we have extremist pressure groups who will stop at nothing, least of all total misrepresentations of the truth, to achieve their ends]

Iam very concerned that we are developing more and more into a radically divided country, not just politically, but economically, morally – in just about every conceivable way.  While the internet has brought forth much good fruit, it has also created echo chambers on both sides, where preconceived notions get repeated and amplified, driving people further towards extremes and leading to a complete inability (and lack of interest in) any kind of reasoned dialogue.  We just had an opinion piece in a major US daily that read like some nightmare, Orwellian “editorial” in Pravda from the mid-60s.  And well it should, because what we just read a virtual playbook of the tactics Italian communist Antonio Gramsci pioneered.  I fear where this is heading.   There is a segment of this country, small in number but incredibly influential in their Gramscian penetration of the media, the academy, and the “arts” (such as they are), who are simply radically at odds with the outlook and desires of a large majority of Americans, and an even larger geographic area (which is why I called them isolated earlier).   Much trouble ahead.

Fr. George David Byers on witnessing Truth to error August 25, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Ecumenism, General Catholic, scandals, sickness, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

Some brave young Catholics witnessed to the socialist hedonists in Spain last week, and were taunted, spat on, yelled at, and violently attacked (with only the intervention of riot police preventing the attacks from being successful).  I have seen comments on some Catholic blogs stating that those witnessing had it coming to them, for having the audacity to witness to the Truth amidst thousands firmly committed to error, even evil.  They should have just stayed nice and quiet in their own Catholic conclave and left those mired in sin and wrong to their own devices.  Fr. George David Byers is having none of that:

There has been much discussion these past weeks about how appropriate it is to give witness to our Lord Jesus before unbelievers. There has been much condemnation of youngsters who chose to witness to our Lord even at the risk of being humiliated and physically endangered, with the condemnation coming in the form of the scoffing of the consensus builders, who are, they claim themselves about themselves, to be the only reasonable people in the world. They do not witness themselves and defend the rights of those in error to live in a world where no witness to truth in charity will be given to them. Everyone religious is nice as long as they shut up and disappear, as long as they practically cease to exist. Nice “consensus”. Consensus building sounds like a virtue, but our Lord spoke not of being nice, but of bringing the sword of division, which is the truth, which is charity, which is godliness in an ungodly world.

THREE POINTS:

1. Error has no rights.

2. People in error have the right — because of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus — to have the truth witnessed to them. They will not get any witness to truth and charity from the consensus builders, but only from faithful Catholics, who will be condemned by them, even to the point of death, of martyrdom, of witness to the truth and love of our Lord.Throughout this persecution, those giving witness will continue to be condemned as stupid, as those who lack the virtue of consensus building, as those who deserved whatever they got for being such fanatics about truth in charity. The persecuters will be praised as being nice, and among the nice will the co-religionists of those giving witness. These co-religionists will have the loudest voices condemning the un-niceness of those giving witness, for they know, deep down, that they should be giving witness as well. [I think this tendency just described has played a large part in the recent attacks on Voris, Zuhlsdorf, to some extent Corapi, etc.  There are many in the Church who don’t like strong, public witness to the Truth Christ has revealed, and at times, they can be the worst enemies of those trying to perform that witness.  Many a Saint suffered far more at the hands of some enemy within the Church than they did from any without.]

3. Hopefully, after all is said and done, the witness will have an effect of conversion on even the most hard-hearted niceness-izers. Hopefully, like the centurion who shoved the sword into the side of Jesus, they will say, truly these were the children of God.

It comes down to Faith.  Those who really believe, tend to put their actions where their mouth is (whether it be praying outside mills, or teaching a class, or one of many other things), and yet it is amazing the criticism they receive.  I think Jesus does want loud, challenging voices in the Church.  I think He wants very hard questions asked, at times.  I think he wants people in the Church who believe, unequivocally, that the Catholic Faith is the Only full Source of Truth in the known universe.  But I know many, many Catholics just aren’t comfortable with that.

I think that’s a shame.

There are serious pro-life candidates for the 2012 election August 25, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Of all the major Republican candidates for the presidency, three have the most well established pro-life credentials.  Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul are all decidedly pro-life, and all have claimed to desire an end to abortion.   But of those 3, only Ron Paul, at present (it is still early) has a statement on his website regarding his position on the issue of abortion:

As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, [this is simply a scientific fact]and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn. [this is, essentially, the position of the Church]

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. [The number of pregnancies that place women’s life in danger are very, very small.  Just as less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest, it is very rare for an abortion to be absolutely essential to prevent fatal injury to the mother]

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.” [it remains to be seen whether any President, once elected, would really act to end abortion, or whether the means outlined here could effectively end abortion]

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.” [This should be a no-brainer, and could have a dramatic effect, legally.  Would the Supreme Court declare an act making law a scientific fact unconstitutional?  That would be an interesting decision]

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program. [Here is an area where I think some pro-life legislation could really do so good.  There is no constitutional ‘right’ to family planning]

The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.

So, Ron Paul has typically run on libertarian issues, but here is a strong statement of social conservatism.  I have many problems with Ron Paul’s positions, but I have a greater problem with the way the national media tries to pretend he doesn’t exist.  He’s the most substantial libertarian candidate to ever run – he’s polling in 2nd or 3rd place in most early states (or he was, before Rick Perry entered the race).   If by some amazing campaigning he actually won the nomination, I could support him with these views on life issues, even with my disagreements in other areas.  Since both parties have so completely let us down, it might be beneficial to have an effectively libertarian president – or, it could be a disaster.  Hard to say.  For now, much as I hate to admit it, my money’s with this guy:

Good Aggie

 
 

Bad Aggie!

Which it’s our birthday, precious…… August 25, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness.
comments closed

……..and we are this many: