NJ Catholic High School Fires Teacher For Posting Catholic Doctrine On Facebook

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Patricia Jannuzzi
Theology teacher Patricia Jannuzzi at Immaculata High was told to take down her Facebook page after agreeing with Catholic Doctrine and coming out against homosexuality.

It is a tenet of the Catholic faith that homosexuality is instrinsically disordered.

It is also a tenet of the Catholic faith that same-sex “marriage” is a mirage.

Alas, at Immaculata High School in Somerville, New Jersey, you can be Catholic and believe these truths, but you can’t post them on Facebook. Or mention them in a classroom.

Patricia Jannuzzi, the Immaculata High School teacher who was forced to remove her Facebook page by the school after making anti-gay posts, has been put on administrative leave.

The school notified alumni, parents and students in a letter today.

“This episode has reflected not only on this teacher but, by extension, on Immaculata High School,” the letter states. “We regret deeply any hurt this has caused to any individuals and the negative light in which it has cast our school.”

Jannuzzi, a theology teacher with Immaculata for 33 years, was forced to de-activate her Facebook page after an online petition — which now has more than 900 signatures — called attention to her posts.

Patricia Jannuzzi was sacked for affirming Catholic doctrine. Her catholic (yes, small c) employer caved to the homofascists. Note their characterization of her statements — “anti-gay” — instead of what they really are, Catholic teaching.

Why? Because noted theologian Susan Sarandon objected! Oh, and some homosexual bozo who had a bit part in a Real Housewives episode got his knickers in a twist too. The part where his tweet libels Rick Santorum? Yeah, that’s tolerance! dontcha know.

Because only Catholics are haters. Homosexuals are the epitome of reason and understanding. Their precious feelings must be assuaged, always.

Or they’ll call you names.

Stacy McCain calls out the hypocritical dichotomy.

While I am not Catholic, I am sufficiently acquainted with their doctrines on marriage and the family to conclude that Ms. Januzzi said nothing in her rant with which the Pope would disagree. And having spent the past several months researching radical feminism, I can say with absolute certainty that the “agenda” is exactly what Ms. Januzzi says it is. But the 21st-Century Thought Police can’t let the truth be spoken.

Let me quote more of Ms. Januzzi’s post. She was reacting emotionally to a story (“Crass: Gay Activist Tweets THIS To Ben Carson Following CNN Interview”) that she linked on her Facebook page, and her point was not very clearly made. She said gay activists, after using the “born that way” argument to gain status under the 14th Amendment “equal protection” clause, will then “argue everyone should be able to choose” homosexuality. Anyone familiar with feminist theory knows that radical lesbians have never accepted the “born that way” argument, instead advocating lesbianism as a “challenge to male supremacy and its basic institution of heterosexuality,” to quote Professor Sheila Jeffreys. This feminist perspective was celebrated in a 1973 song by Alix Dobkin, “Every Woman Can Be a Lesbian.”

The radical “choice” view of sexuality advocated by lesbian feminists is seldom heard from gay males, who usually describe their homosexual desires as an uncontrollable urge. However, one finds across the spectrum of the LGBT rainbow a unanimous consensus on what we might call the Compulsory Approval Doctrine:

No one can ever be permitted to express a personal aversion or moral objection to homosexual behavior.

Disapproval is synonymous with “hate,” according to gay activists, and the cultural consequence of the Compulsory Approval Doctrine is to stigmatize heterosexuality as an expression of prejudice. Many gay people have convinced themselves that the “straight” person’s rejection of homosexual behavior is implicit proof ofhomophobia — an irrational fear — so that all heterosexuals are basically viewed as ignorant bigots afflicted with neurotic sexual repression. And if you dare cite religious injunctions against homosexuality, you thereby prove that you are certainly a hater. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Because, apparently, disapproval of homosexual urges is tantamount to imposing a Death Sentence. I’m told that kids who believe they are gay are prone to commit suicide if they aren’t immediately celebrated with parades, balloons, confetti, and abject deference to the Inherent Moral Authority of their newfound sexual deviancy. Their feelings trump everything. Including reason.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Well, Bollocks!

Look: I’m old enough to remember when a boy could be suspended from public school if his hair was long enough to touch his shirt collar in back. I remember when a girl could get kicked off the cheerleading squad if she engaged in PDA (public display of affection) by holding hands with her boyfriend. There was a time — and not really that long ago, either — when young people could not demand approval from their elders, and in fact teenagers were constantly subjected to lectures of adult disapproval for their adolescent wildness. Yet we did not commit suicide, nor did we organize petitions to get our teachers fired because they disapproved of us, inter alia, smoking dope and listening to Led Zeppelin.

Our parents and teachers told us we were hellbound heathens and, once we grew up and looked back on our misspent youth, most of us agreed they were right. God forbid any of my kids should ever go wild like I went wild in the ’70s. America was still a free country back then, and adults weren’t expected to tiptoe around lest they bruise the fragile self-esteem of a Special Snowflake. Back then, totalitarianism was a threat posed by the Soviet Union. Now the totalitarians are here among us, organizing to suppress dissent, punishing expression of opinions contrary to those of the progressive elite.

Indeed.

The totalitarian Gay Mafia has punished Patricia Jannuzzi.

But, I suspect they aren’t done with her yet.

It’s not sufficient for her to lose her current job. She has to become unemployable. Her livelihood must be defenestrated. It’s the Godfather paradigm: make an example of one, and the rest will fall in line.

I ask you. What teacher at Immaculata will dare defend Catholic doctrine tomorrow?

And as Immaculata goes, so goes the Diocese of Metuchen. Bishop Bootkoski, please call Archbishop Cordileone. Pray together, so that we, your Catholic faithful, do not hang separately.

The comments at the original news article sadden me. The hatred and vitriol directed at Patricia Jannuzzi, and at Catholics in general, is staggering.

But it’s par for the course in Homosexualville, where the least tolerant and most judgmental people you’ll ever meet conspire to stamp out any vestiges of disagreement with their chosen lifestyle. They constantly seek affirmation of their debauchery, even as their consciences nag them from behind the brick wall they’ve erected to compartmentalize their sins. Because even the tiniest spark of righteousness shakes the very foundation of their licentiousness. Such is the fragility of their zeitgeist, censure is anathema.

Shame on Immaculata High School for abandoning Catholic doctrine, and for throwing one of their own into the lion’s den.

There are Christians in Iraq and Africa who refuse to renounce their faith even as they face certain death. Yet the administration at Immaculata cowers in fear at the mere thought of “anti-gay” publicity, as if their eternal souls would be tarnished by the approbrium of fornicating sodomites.

Shame on them, I say again. Now is not the time to go weak.

Homosexuality is wrong. It is contrary to nature, and to nature’s God.

Pray for the presecutors of Patricia Jannuzzi. Pray that their hearts may be opened, and that their sins might be forgiven. Pray for strength to resist the hordes of secularization. Pray that Almighty God has mercy on us all.

.

.

 

Share

Socialism And Communism Are Contrary To Christianity

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is a friend of Ed Morrissey who gives a response refuting the popular myth that the Church’s “social justice” mission is compatible with Socialism and Communism. Rev. Marcel Guarnizo counters the belief that the ideas of socialist revolution and Communism have a place at the table with Christianity.  Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that Christianity shares some ideals with the socialist revolution.  It seems to them that Socialism, Communism, and Christianity all help the poor. Father Guarnizo outlines and exposes the errors of Communism. 

Father Marcel Guarnizo writes: “The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.”


Drawing from sound Christian teachings on economics and liberty Father Marcel Guarnizo explains his position in great detail and length. 


There has been much discussion in recent weeks over the debt of Christianity to—and its compatibility with —the ideas and praxis of the socialist revolution, and even of communism. Many, even in the Catholic Church, believe that we share some of the ideals of the socialist revolution because it seems to them that communism, socialism and Christianity are for the poor. In addition to this most unfortunate error, the opposite fallacy has also been made popular in the minds of many, namely that capitalists and advocates of a free market economy, hate the poor. 

But the historical record of communism tells an entirely different story.  I have worked with the countries of the former Soviet Union for over 20 years, and I have seen what communism does to populations and nations. The scourge of the socialist revolution around the world gave us 6 million people killed by artificial famines in Ukraine and, as documented by The Black Book of Communism, 20 million victims in the U.S.S.R., 65 million in China, a million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, another 2 million in Cambodia, a million more in the rest of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and through the international Communist movement and related parties about 100,000 more victims in various nations.  This is a body count that reaches to 100 million victims worldwide. Communism completely destroyed the economy, social fabric, and political culture of dozens of nations. It hollowed out the intelligentsia, ruined every economy where the seed of socialism fully “bloomed,” and abrogated fundamental rights and individual freedoms of the nations it subjugated.  Clearly the Judeo-Christian commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not among the doctrinal teachings of communism and the socialist revolution. It is hard to believe that the socialist revolution—unlike Nazism—still finds promoters and defenders in the West. 

The compatibility of Christianity and its legitimate concern for the poor owes nothing to the violent and inhuman regimes created by the socialist revolution. No system in human history has produced more poverty and misery than communism.
No greater foe has the Church ever encountered, than the communist revolution. During the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of religious and priests were sent to forced labor camps or simply executed. Five year plans to abolish religion were implemented and no true believer was ever safe in such nations. What social doctrine of the Church was ever derived from such madness? Communism and the socialist revolution are not only the antithesis of Christianity. They are also incompatible with free, just, and democratic societies.
 

The case against the “wonders” of the socialist revolution can be put to rest by simply reminding people that brick and mortar walls, guarded by armed soldiers, were necessary to keep people from fleeing the manmade paradise of “social equality” created by communists. As Milton Friedman pointed out, the “…strongest proof of the failure of socialism is the fall of the Berlin Wall.” 

Neither is a complex apologia required to explain why there is no substantial difference between socialism and communism. Communism, as American writer Whittaker Chambers documented, is nothing more than socialism with claws. Theoretically the two systems share the same ideals and philosophical framework. Communism simply takes socialism to its logical, final consequences.
The difference between the two was captured well by a joke I once read.  Communists will simply shoot you in the head, but the socialists will make you suffer for a lifetime.
 

To mount a case against the socialist and the communist would seem completely unnecessary given the historical record. But it is necessary, because, as we see, communism’s ideology continues to ensnare the minds of the West and many of its leaders. Perhaps the statement of Whittaker Chambers, when he decided to defect from his service to the Soviet Union, that he had chosen to join, “… the losing side” is not altogether settled. Many think the fall of the Soviet Union proved Chambers wrong, but I submit that Chambers understood, perhaps more clearly than most, the lasting and insidious nature of the socialist revolution in the West. It seems to me, that the West’s great partial victory against the Soviet Union is far from being final. Though the Soviet Empire has fallen, the West remains in an equally powerful cultural battle, which the architects of the socialist revolution themselves anticipated.

 

Gramsci’s Tactic: Cultural Hegemony

The socialist revolution in the West has been greatly influenced by the tactics of the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci. Writing in the 1930s, Gramsci recognized that the culture of the West, and in particular, the Catholic Church, stood as robust obstacles to a communist economic and political takeover in Europe. Gramsci proposed that a takeover of the cultural institutions—the achievement of cultural hegemony—was the necessary first step to the eventual takeover of the political and economic structures of a free society. 

This strategy meant that socialists should tirelessly work on the takeover over of universities and education, media, churches, and other cultural intermediary structures of the free world. He thought that the eroding of the cultural foundations would weaken a free society’s natural defenses and this would open the path for the economic and political aims of the socialist revolution. 

I would submit that the “cultural hegemony” of the socialist revolution is increasing in the West and at an alarming pace. The increasing loss of ground in our culture to socialism and its allies is creating a growing threat to the political and economic freedoms of America and Western democracies. 

Therefore, it seems to me, the battle between the free world and the socialist revolution is far from settled.  The errors of communism are legion, and the West should not slumber, as the battle is far from over.

 

The Errors of Communism 

  1. 1.   The Error Concerning the Nature of Man

Communism starts not with an economic error but an anthropological one. The economic and political effects of the communist system are but a symptom of a previous error, an error about the nature of man. 

The French 19th century political economist and writer Frédéric Bastiat clearly makes the point. Socialism, Bastiat argued, sees man as mere raw material, to be disposed of, to be molded by the “all knowing,” state. In his book, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, economist Friedrich von Hayek launches a similar attack on the socialists and their “omniscient state.”  Hayek demonstrated the impotence of the socialist to run an economy 

Man is just matter: This materialist vision of man is the first and most profound error of the socialist revolution. The materialist vision of man is what justifies the communists’ insistence that they may legitimately do whatever it takes to achieve their utopia. We must be transformed by the state, into its image and likeness. 

This materialist view disregards therefore the true dignity of man and the true nature of the human person—his rationality and free will. The artificial social orders engineered by socialists are completely devoid of a proper understanding of man and the kind of being that he is. CONTINUED

Original Post: TeresAmerica

Share

Pope Benedict, The Gang of 8, and Social Justice

Share

When R.S. McCain  emails you and invokes the name of God, you probably ought to listen.  And, since I’ve been trying to closer to the supreme being as of late, I had little choice but to comply.  As for the reasoning for invoking the creator, it seems that the Pope has weighed in on the immigration issue.  R.S. McCain had addressed the immigration concern, so get over to his site and read that part.

In an update, he really knocked it out of the park. He hit on one topic that often infuriates me-social justice…

The duty of Christian charity cannot be transferred to governments, because that not only relieves the individual of his own obligation to charity, but it also encourages an attitude of helpless dependency and entitlement among the poor. “Social justice” thereby becomes a sort of adhesive that glues the poor to the economic floor, where sloth and profligacy are rewarded by government handouts and the lazy are encouraged toward envy of the industrious and thrifty.

I covered this back in 2011…

There has been, in my opinion, a monstrous perversion of Christian teachings.  In order to promote Marxism, a variety of of Christian organizations and denominations have been infiltrated and influenced to promote an anti-Christian message- “social justice.”   Many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well.   Just take a moment to let that thought percolate.  Would Jesus support Marxism?  Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state?  Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.

What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments.  Here’s a random selection of verses.

Deuteronomy 15:7
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

Leviticus 25:35
‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.

Psalm 37:25-26
I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Matthew 6:1-4
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

2 Corinthians 9:7
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Timothy 6:17-18
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.

I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian.  But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal.  God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate.  I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves.  Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner.  Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the giver’s soul.  Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.

Let’s contrast that with the concept of social justice.  Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC).  How does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person?  How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God?  Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?  I don’t recall Jesus holding a gun to someone’s head, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Che certainly did, and in millions of cases, their minions pulled the trigger.

To me, the answer is simple.  Government taxation is NOT charity.  It does nothing for the “giver,” and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the “War on Poverty,” and ended up with more poverty  I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty. No one bothers to mention that in the war on poverty, poverty won.  And, in fact, the government’s efforts helped poverty win, and will continue to do so.

So then, this destructive and persistent notion of social justice has infected one of the the worlds great institutions.  It is false, and in my opinion, inconsistent with Biblical teachings.

Share

Catholic Bishop Promises Civil Disobedience if ObamaCare Abortion Mandates Enforced

Share

It appears that the Catholic Church is gearing up for a showdown against the Obama Administration, especially when it comes to the ObamaCare mandates concerning abortion.  Gateway Pundit has more…

Catholic.org reported:

Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963) is one of our nation’s elegant testimonies to the political implications of our Declaration of Independence:

“One may want to ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”

Indeed, there may be more theological letters written from the confines of jail cells in the near future, as the Catholic bishops quickly approach the end of a one-year deadline given to them by the Obama administration to obey the HHS mandate or face the consequences. Not a single bishop has signaled any other intention than to embrace the consequences with the joy of serving Christ.

Was Archbishop Chaput predicting the future in the interview when he concluded,“This has been the story of the martyrs through the centuries”? We know it has crossed his mind: At Chester Springs, he said, but only half-jokingly, “I don’t want to go to jail.”

If the election affirms the Obama administration’s HHS mandate, there is a 100 percent chance that there will be civil disobedience in the Catholic Church, led by its bishops. Whether jail will follow is anyone’s guess.

I wonder how the media will cover this?  Will the Catholics be portrayed as “dangerous radicals?”  Will they be accused of all the things that OWS actually did, and was given cover for?  I think we all know the answer to that. Though, there is a possibility that Obama will relent, if to only take some of the pressure off.

We’ll see what happens.

Share

Let’s Save America

Share

If Paul Revere were alive today, he wouldn’t be warning us that the redcoats are coming — he’d be telling us they’re already here.  And these days, it’s not the crimson coats that identify the enemy — it’s their black totalitarian hearts.

One of this era’s night watchmen is Ulsterman’s White House Insider. WHI, apocryphal or not, has been accurately tolling the alarm bell for some time. Some excerpts from Ulsterman’s latest report:

“We Got One Last Chance Here To Make It Right”

[…] WHI: … I’ll say it to you again and again – Obama ain’t no Democrat. Never was. Never has been. He controls the party…people who think like him…people who placed him in power…they control the party…but they represent something far different than what the party was 20 odd years ago …these Obama people…they are different.  A whole other level.  Never seen anything like it …

… You got no f-cking idea how far these people will go to keep pushin’ this agenda of theirs.  Everything I told you was coming – now it’s here.   The dismantling of the American system.  The drones, the race riots, the promises to other countries…the open borders, the destruction of our domestic energy productions, the Obama government at war with the Catholic Church…the massive inflation that is just perched above us waiting to fall down on all our heads…so much sh-t they got ready to fire at us.  That second term…that’s their moment.  Obamacare, the deficit…cities going under…military cutbacks…I can’t keep track of it all it’s going on so damn fast now.  This election coming up – people better know…they ain’t messing around now.  This is the real f-cking deal right here.  Right now.

***

UM:  Why haven’t more in the military – why haven’t they come out against this administration?  You’ve told me, the Old Man has told me…the Military Insider hinted at it – that they know this administration is doing wrong.  Why not come out against them?

WHI:  (Long Pause)  If they came out against the president…something like that – an openly public and deliberate move against the president…that would be a crisis.  A domestic crisis of epic f-cking proportions.  That’s now how these kinda things go down kid.   That’s Hollywood bullsh-t stuff – that’s not reality.

The Joint Chiefs…those guys are politicians as much as Obama.  And the ones right under them – they want that next step up, right?  And the administration, they play that card to the hilt.  Same thing with Congress.  I know for a fact there are Senators – Democrats…who are appalled at what the administration is doing.  Appalled at what they are hearing about the character and motivations of this so-called president.  But to come right out against him…Reid won’t have it.  I don’t know what kinda deal was struck between those two devils – Reid and Obama…but Reid has the Senate on lockdown.  And he’s got most of those Democrats in the Senate too damn afraid to say anything – while the rest of them are happy to support the administrationbecause they are cut from that same idiotic socialist progressive cloth as he is– and they think they will get a seat at the big table when all of this shakes out.

***

You’re askin’ what it will take to defeat Obama?  Defeat the ones around him?  Jarrett?  Holder?  All of them?  It’s gonna take the American people to wake the f-ck up NOW.  It’s getting to be go time here.  August is when the real race is run…all the way to end … This IS the time to pay attention…tell everyone you know…everyone you care about…vote out Obama.  Vote the son-of-a-bitch out.  We got one last chance here to make it right.

… we gotta do this together.  All of us.  Every last one of us.  I need your readers help.  I need them to speak out to everyone they know.  Every last person they know.  For the love of God get people motivated to do what’s right this election.  None of us can afford to sit this one out.  None of us.

***

I’ll promise you this…if Obama is defeated this election… If the American people send him on his way…there is gonna be a whole sh-t pile of information coming out on what was really going on inside that White House of his and Jarrett’s.  People will have the guts to speak out – openly.  And they won’t be alone.  They will be able to do it without the fear that hangs over them now – all of us…how scary sh-t is right now.

And when all that truth starts to come out…people…the ones willing to listen and understand…they are gonna realize just how close the country…how close we were to the darkness.  The future that was gonna be ripped away from their kids and grandkids.  And how their votes against Obama saved America. How they saved that future.  In the end…like I told you…in the end when the country is in real crisis – it always comes down to the American people to save it … let’s get to it.  Let’s save America.

Anybody who’s ever served time in a combat zone in any era has a first hand familiarity with deadly incompetence and lethal stupidity — most of which emanates from the politicians who sent them there in the first place. Yes-men in uniform are even more common than their civilian counterparts, given their training in blind obedience to orders even if issued by criminals and buffoons.  Historically, American officers have not been particularly susceptible to felonious obsequiousness of this sort, but after nearly four years of rule by Barack Obama, an ominous sea change seems to have taken place in American military thought:

Army Colonel Ignites Firestorm With Article On Crushing A ‘Tea Party Insurgency’

[…] The report describes how the Army will respond to threats “at home and abroad” in the coming two decades and in doing so has made clear that a monumental cultural shift has occurred in the thinking of those at the top levels of military command. This shift has some government watchdogs worried, particularly given that Benson is using the platform provided at Fort Leavenworth to indoctrinate soldiers in his vision of the nature of modern warfare in America. According to the vision articulated by Benson, future warfare will be conducted on our own soil. The military will use its full force against our own citizens. The enemy will be average citizens whose values resonate with those articulated by the tea party.

… Several items of interest are to be noted in the scenario the Army uses to describe the tea party activists — “right wing,” “extremists,” “insurrectionists,” all of whom are lumped together with militias and organizations that are considered “racist” and “anti-immigration.” By contrast, those who oppose the tea party are referred to as “mainstream.”

… repeatedly since the election of Barack Obama in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has referred to the tea party as “potential homegrown terrorists.”

Why? Not a shred of evidence remotely suggests that the tea party has any connection whatsoever with terrorists. Yet some of President Obama’s closest longtime friends have not only been associated with terrorism but actively participated in it, such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who as members of the Weathermen from the 1960s and 70s bombed federal buildings that resulted in the deaths of police officers … if one listens to the rhetoric emanating from the White House, DHS, and now the U.S. military, one gets the impression that none of the president’s friends ever posed a threat to the country but hundreds of thousands of tea party activists are ticking time bombs lying in wait to unleash a nuke on an American city at the drop of a hat.

The brainwashing against conservatives by this administration has had a definite impact on the military. One analyst who works for retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told this reporter that now over half of Pentagon personnel are solidly in Obama’s corner and share his values and world view.

Someone should remind the uniformed Obamunists of the fate of another group that blindly obeyed the diktats of their Leader: the war criminals who mounted the gallows in Nuremberg in 1945.

See also:

Bringing the War Back Home. “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland”

Obama’s Red Heads

Independence Day 2012

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then go Ahead

Share

Christianity and Social Justice, a False Comparison

Share

There has been, in my opinion, a monstrous perversion of Christian teachings.  In order to promote Marxism, a variety of of Christian organizations and denominations have been infiltrated and influenced to promote an anti-Christian message- “social (in)justice.”   Many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well.   Just take a moment to let that thought percolate.  Would Jesus support Marxism?  Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state?  Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.

What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments.  Here’s a random selection of verses.

Deuteronomy 15:7
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

Leviticus 25:35
‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.

Psalm 37:25-26
I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Matthew 6:1-4
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

2 Corinthians 9:7
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Timothy 6:17-18
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.

I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian.  But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal.  God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate.  I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves.  Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner.  Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the giver’s soul.  Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.

Let’s contrast that with the concept of social justice.  Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC).  How does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person?  How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God?  Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?  I don’t recall Jesus holding a gun to someone’s head, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Che certainly did, and in millions of cases, their minions pulled the trigger.

To me, the answer is simple.  Government taxation is NOT charity.  It does nothing for the “giver,” and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the “War on Poverty,” and ended up with more poor people!  I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty. No one bothers to mention that in the war on poverty, poverty won.  And, in fact, the government’s efforts helped poverty win, and will continue to do so.

Share

Take This Religion and Shove It

Share

I was in need of some spiritual guidance yesterday in mass. Somewhere along the way these past few months I’ve let grow within me some apparent childish mid-life crisis, and in recent weeks have been a public ass to people at work, friends I’ve known for more than a decade, members of my family, and people who visit my other blog.

I prayed for peace and guidance and, most importantly, forgiveness, acknowledging to God that I need to do a lot more listening and a lot less talking. Imagine my shock when, listening, I heard the lector ask me, along with the rest of the Parish, “to pray that Congress passes much needed health care reform legislation …”

Needless to say, having protested against health care deform since the spring, I walked out, shaking with anger. Guidance like that will get you tied to the government yoke quicker than you can say hope and change and be coaxed into electing a narcissist. Read Atlas Shrugged, if you think I’m being over-the-top. You might recognize quite a few things that have already happened in the world, and will continue to happen, like this.

The Church has been all over the map on health deform, with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops first having issued a declaration of support for the House bill in August 2009 and then declaring they did not support the Senate bill in November. The issue the Church is most concerned with, obviously, is abortion, as the House bill provides an amendment that will prohibit federal funding for abortions (but there’s no guarantee it will survive the final version of whatever legislation the House and Senate eventually agree on, if they ever do), while the Senate bill does not prohibit such funding.

But, as the American Thinker pointed out near summer’s end, the bishops have failed to address one of the largest issues, alive in both bills, that clearly has been a driving force of fervent opposition among millions of Americans: the rationing, and in essence, denial, of care, the singling out of the elderly and the infirm as groups of people who will receive less care under government health deform for the greater good of the young and healthy. So, therefore, the Church is okay with denying care, and we all know what denial of care leads to, death. What’s a word for government sanctioned death? Euthanasia. You know, like this.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the Church’s opposition to euthanasia, as noted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2277:

Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.

Yesterday, I found a letter Catholic bishops sent to Congresscriminals and Obama last week (which explains why I was asked today “to pray” for health deform to get through Congress), in which they specifically request that health deform (still NOT addressing the issue of rationing):

  • Ensures access to quality, affordable, life-giving health care for all
  • Retains longstanding requirements that federal funds not be used for elective abortions or plans that include them, and effectively protects conscience rights
  • Protects the access to health care that immigrants currently have and removes current barriers to access

I can completely agree with the second bullet point, having held each of my two newborns in my hands and knowing I could never sanction their abortion, but that’s as far as I can go. I can no longer support a faith that would:

  • Have my government tax me to provide coverage for others (how the hell else are we going to pay for it?), effectively telling me that it is no longer my spiritual requirement to be charitable to others but instead my duty to the state to share my wealth on behalf of those who do not have what I may have (or, to put it more precisely, via Karl Marx,”from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”)
  • Have “health care for all” but not specifically address rationing for the elderly and infirm
  • Have access to health coverage for illegal immigrants who do not belong here and should not have any access whatsoever to government programs that Congresscriminals can’t even effectively fund for legal American citizens. Naturally it’s quite interesting which is the fastest growing group of people in the U.S. Catholic Church: Hispanics.

Clearly the Roman Catholic Church is much more concerned with surviving by playing politics than through caring for souls; its hospitals do, after all, account for 15.5% of U.S. hospital admissions.

I spared my poor wife the embarrassment of me officially writing the letter I wanted to put in the correspondence box, hanging outside the Parish Office, so apparently I’m learning to be charitable to others, so that I don’t ruin their standing in the social community of the Church.

But that’s as charitable as I’m going to be to the Catholic Church for the rest of my life, and I’ll now apparently have to seek peace and salvation elsewhere. I certainly don’t want to get my politics there.

Cross-posted at Obama’s Arrogant Chin

Share