Follow by Email

Monday, November 28, 2005


We don't need to worry about the Nazi's anymore - THERE HERE AND IN CONTROL!

Miami Police Take New Tack Against TerrorMonday, November 28, 2005 3:45 PM ESTThe Associated PressBy CURT ANDERSON


— Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.

"This is an in-your-face type of strategy...."...

Sunday, November 27, 2005


The interesting thing about the "crime" of holocaust denial is that the truth is no defense at all. You can be telling the absolute truth and even be able to prove it ... and still go to jail for several years.
Meanwhile, if Zundel, Irving, Rudolph and Verbeke are being sent to jail for challenging the orthodox story, then why hasn't the International Red Cross been arrested? after all, they had access to the German camps, both POW and labor, and their official reports do not support the orthodox accounts popularized in novels, TV shows, and films.
And, if Zundel, Irving, Rudolph and Verbeke are being sent to jail for challenging the orthodox story, then so too should the curators of the Auschwitz museum, for daring to revise downward the total number of dead at the camps from 4 million to1 1/2 million in 1990.
Nobody locks up people who claim to see Bigfoot, or who think Elvis is alive. People with such loony notions are simply allowed their freedom of speech, then ridiculed, then ignored. If Zundel, Irving, Rudolph and Verbeke are totally crazy, why the intense pressure to steal them from their homes and ship them to Germany for the crime of simply not agreeing with a particular spin of the history of WW2?
Truth needs no laws to support it. Throughout history, from Galileo to Zundel, only lies and liars have resorted to the courts to enforce adherence to dogma. More than anything else, it is the extreme tactics employed by the defenders of the orthodoxy that calls into doubt the accuracy of the history they proclaim to the world.

(the above comments are commentary from I found his wording to be almost perfect -and even though i certainly do not agree with everything on his web-site - i could not have said this better myself. (thought i take exception to the Galileo reference).

Here are the relevant links:;_ylt=As2KPk_r78nHIQ6K6kisu_as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE

Thursday, November 17, 2005


Monday, November 14, 2005

The real Terrorists!

Read the following links -and put two and two together.

This is a story about the recent Amman hotel bombings which killed at least 57 people and injured more than 115. The key part of this story is that the Israelis were evacuated BEFORE the bombing and escorted back to Israel!

This story - brought back some memories for me - check these stories out:

This story tells how Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Embassy in London were warned in advance of the London Train Bombings, whereby - Netenyahu stayed in his hotel instead of making his way to address an economic summit at a site adjecent to the first explosion.\

This story reports how the Israeli owned Odigo Corporation, located in the WTC received emails two hours before the WTC was struck by the first plane - warning the israeli employees of the coming attack.

It is also interesting to note that not a single Israeli died in the WTC on September 11. People died in the WTC from several nations, but none from Israel - lucky for them, especially since there was an Israeli owned business operating in the WTC! And of course, we all know that the USA and Israeli have very little to do with each other, so no Israeli citizen would have any reason to be in the WTC! I almost choked on that last sentence!


we are being led by the nose!

(note well, that each of these news stories comes from an Israeli newspaper web-site - hardly an anti-jewish - or anti-israel source, and not by any stretch of the imagination - a conspiracy site.)

Monday, November 07, 2005


Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

By Martin Penner07-11-2005

From: The Australian

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

The Myth of Eternal Security

Since i don't have time to keep going round and round with Jason - I happened to come upon this fine writing regarding this false belief of Jason. I simply cut and pasted it - here it is...

The Myth of Eternal Security "Once Saved, Always Saved" Refuted By Scripture & Philosophy


At least since the time of Jean Cauvin (1509-1564), commonly called John Calvin in English, some people professing belief in Christ as their Lord and Savior have embraced the idea that one can be justified before God here on earth once, and this justification is of such a nature that nothing--no action, no event, no sin--can possibly undo it. That is, once one has been "saved," one cannot lose this salvation, and one is guaranteed Heaven forever. Any sort of righteous action is considered "adding on" to the "finished work of Christ," and to admit that any sin could possibly undo this "salvation" is considered to be an admission that Christ's redemptive act is insufficient or somehow dependent on us frail, sinful human beings.

It certainly is an attractive idea to think that one only has to pray a "sinner's prayer" and can then sit back and relax, one's salvation being guaranteed. In fact, believers in this doctrine of "eternal security" (sometimes referred to as the "perseverance of the saints"), and there are quite a few of them, often invite the "unsaved" who already profess belief in Christ with alluring lines like this:
Would you like to know perfect peace in Christ and rest for your soul? Would you like to experience a salvation that is sure and guaranteed? Would you like to believe in a Christ who has given His uttermost for you, paid the full penalty of sin for you and earned your entry into Heaven for you? This is the Christ of the Bible!

Then the Protestant apologist will bombard you with Scripture verses that, allegedly, prove that our salvation is guaranteed and cannot be lost, once it has been obtained. Note first of all that these Protestants use the catching phrase of "would you like to..." or sometimes "wouldn't you want to...." I think anybody can see that what we or I might possibly want is completely irrelevant. God doesn't make the rules according to our personal desires. Many people would certainly want to be allowed to keep sinning and still go to Heaven--yet that "desire" hardly makes it so. In other words, the phrase "would you like to" should be a warning signal to any thinking Christian; what matters is not what I would like but what God would like and has decreed. Since when is theology and divine revelation fashioned according to man's wants, after all?

The biblical "proof texts" these Protestants employ typically include Romans 8:29-30, 1 John 5:13, Romans 8:38-39, John 6:37, and John 10:28-29. Taken just by themselves, they may sound convincing, but let's first remember that simply quoting Scripture is no great accomplishment. The devil himself, in tempting Our Lord, did the same thing. Each time Satan tried to trick the Lord through some twisted Scripture, Christ demonstrated it had been taken out of context, replying with another Scripture and its proper interpretation. Hence, when Protestants quote Scripture, we must check the context to see if it contradicts the authentic Scriptural message, that is, the interpretation and teaching of the Apostles and their successors, who have received sound doctrine from God Himself (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2, etc.).

At first, let's look at the often-quoted verses in support of Calvinism's "eternal security":
Romans 8:29-30For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
"See," says the eternal-security believer, "it says here quite plainly that all those who are justified will be glorified. God predestines certain men to glory, and these He justifies. Thus, we can know that once we are justified, we will enter Heaven." But is that so?

Not at all. First, we know that even though "many are called, [only] few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14). Eternal-security Protestants read this passage as if it said "those whom he called, he also predestined," whereas, in truth, the passage says "those whom he predestined, he also called." Let's not confuse the cause with the effect.

Secondly, the most obvious contradiction to the eternal-security interpretation of Romans 8:29-30 is the fact that the passage is in the past tense. St. Paul does not say, "those whom God justifies, He will also glorify," and he certainly doesn't say, "those whom God justifies at one point, He will glorify eventually, no matter what." Rather, it makes much more sense to recognize that Paul is probably talking about Christians who have already lived and died in a state of grace, and thus their predestination, calling, justification, and glorification is already completed. Why even mention that, one might wonder? Well, this assures the faithful on earth that if they are faithful to God, they too will be glorified in Heaven. In fact, just a few verses earlier, St. Paul emphasizes that this is what he means: "If [we are] children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" (Romans 8:17). So what does our glorification depend on? Our suffering with Him!

Thirdly, it seems obvious from even a marginal reading of Roman 8:29-30 that Paul is referring to the same body of people throughout his one sentence about predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Those who were justified had also been called, Paul says, but that leaves enough room to admit of people who are justified but not called and hence fall away again. So the mere justification at one instant within one's life means nothing. It does not guarantee glorification in Heaven, and Romans 8:29-30 does not state the contrary.

Thus, the text merely says that those who were predestined by God were also called by God, and those, then, were also justified by Him, and then glorified. Nowhere does this passage even remotely hint at the Protestant understanding that somehow anyone who is ever justified for a little while will necessarily remain such till his death. It only talks about particular predestined people who had died up to that point, that these people were predestined, called, justified, and eventually glorified. This will happen to all the predestined, but this doesn't mean that everyone who is justified at one point will be glorified. It means that those who were called were eventually glorified--and that is an unchanging truth the Catholic Church has always affirmed.

The second passage I wish to examine is 1 John 5:13:

1 John 5:13I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

So St. John tells us we can "know" that we have eternal life. Of course we can know. But this is not an absolute knowledge but a conditional one: we know we will go to Heaven if we die in a state of grace, that is, if we are justified before God at the moment of our death. In fact, one wonders why St. John would encourage us to keep the Commandments in the very same chapter (vv. 2 and 3) if we were guaranteed Heaven regardless!

Secondly, and possibly more importantly, what is often overlooked in this passage is St. John's statement "I write this to you." Well, what is the "this" that he wrote? Isn't it important to look at all he wrote in this epistle in order to properly evaluate how we can know that we have eternal life by what he wrote? So let's look at what he wrote, to the shock of many a Protestant:

1 John 3:6No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.

1 John 3:23And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

1 John 5:2-3By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

So St. John writes this that we may be assured of eternal salvation. That changes the whole picture, doesn't it? And once we look at the "this" that he wrote in the Epistle, it becomes crystal-clear that the only authentic interpretation of 1 John 5:13 is that our salvation is assured if we obey God, i.e. if we die in a state of grace.

Let us look at another commonly-cited passage:

Romans 8:38-39For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

What does the eternal-security believer see in this? To him, it means that nothing in the world can separate us from our justification, from our salvation. But the text does not say that. First of all, St. Paul only mentions forces external to the individual--death, angels, powers, things to come, etc. (The same goes for other forces he mentions in verse 35.) He does not mention internal forces, such as a thwarted will or sin, even once--yet, would this not have been a perfect opportunity to do just that, if that is what he wanted to teach? Paul could easily have said, "Neither adultery nor fornication, nor blasphemy nor idolatry, nor any other sin can separate us from the love of God." Yet, that's not what he said. A second and certainly equal observation we ought to make here is that the passages does not mention salvation; rather, it talks about "the love of God." That is rather vague, and I don't see any justification for taking this to mean our salvation. Rather, what the passage is saying is that God will not disown His Church--He will not love us today and then change His mind tomorrow. His side of the bargain He will always keep; but "if we disown him, he will disown us" (2 Timothy 2:12).

So we see that this passage, also, is not supportive of eternal security. Let's now look at John 6:37:

John 6:37All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.

Surely, this demonstrates that once we're saved, we are eternally secure, right? Wrong. The verse says no such thing. It says that Christ will not cast out anyone who comes to Him. It says nothing about him who abandons Christ after he has come to Him. And how can one abandon Christ? Through sin, through a refusal of the will to follow Him, believe in Him, and keep His Commandments. Here's the proof:

Ezekiel 18:26When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has committed he shall die.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 10:12Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
Galatians 5:21I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things [serious sins] shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Hebrews 6:4-8For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

Matthew 22:14For many are called, but few are chosen.

Romans 6:12-13Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.

Romans 8:17If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Romans 11:22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

2 Timothy 2:12If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us....
John 15:6If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Matthew 7:21"Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...."

Matthew 19:23-24And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Romans 2:5-6But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works.

Do we need more biblical proof? Hardly, though there are, of course, many more passages. I want to remind everyone that all of these passages are directed to those already professing belief in Christ. They're not directed to those who still need to be converted, so the typical Protestant reply (excuse), "Oh, that's just for the unsaved," won't work.

Finally, one more major "proof text" of the Calvinists:

John 10:28-29I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

This is similar to John 6:37. Just because no one can snatch the faithful out of God's hand doesn't mean the faithful can't jump out and become faithless. In short, the passage is talking about God's faithfulness, not man's. Even Protestant theologian R.C.H. Lenski writes: "A believer may after all be lost [John 15:6] . . . While no foe of ours is able to snatch us from our Shepherd's hand, we ourselves may turn from him and may perish willfully of our own accord" (Commentary on John; quoted in Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, p. 274).

Now, make no mistake about it, though. The staunch defender of eternal security, at this point, will not give up. In fact, he will now draw his last sword, which may seem convincing to many, but which is in fact his weakest. He will now say, "Those who commit such serious sins after they have accepted Christ were never really saved in the first place. Their saving didn't take. They thought they were saved, but they really were not." Then he will quote 1 John 2:19:
1 John 2:19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

And so the Protestant will argue that, indeed, some who have "accepted Christ" but then continued in sin do not go to Heaven; but not because they lost their justification, but because they were never justified in the first place. It was an illusion, so the argument goes.
What to make of this? First an answer concerning the actual verse. Note that 1 John 2:19 does not speak of all believers who fall away in general. It speaks of particular people. The "they" whom St. John mentions are, according to verse 18: "many antichrists." Certainly, not all who once believed the Gospel and then fall away are "antichrists." One theologian notes: "We know that John, in using the word 'antichrists,' is not referring to the run-of-the-mill Christian believer but to treacherous antichrists whose sole purpose in life is to thwart the cause of Christianity..." (Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, p. 263). So what this passage teaches us is that some (namely, those "antichrists") who fall away were never true believers to begin with, but not that this is true for all of them. It is quite possible that some of those who fall away believed truly and sincerely, in the beginning, but then gave up their faith later on. Indeed, this is precisely what Christ tells us in the Parable of the Sower:

Mark 4:14-19The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

In any case, even aside from biblical proof, the "they were never saved to begin with" argument proves unsound on philosophical and logical grounds. Once the Protestants have gotten themselves where they have this as their only argument to fall back on, they have already lost. For now they are in a corner from which they cannot escape. All we need now to defeat their erroneous doctrine is simple logical reasoning:

According to those who hold to it, "eternal security" is a consoling doctrine because it teaches the certainty of salvation.

Yet, it is possible to mistakenly think one has been saved when one actually is not
No one can know whether he is part of those who erroneously believe themselves saved but are not, since no one can foresee the future, but this is what would be required to know whether some future sin might disqualify one from having been saved, i.e. whether one was never actually saved in the first place

Hence, no one can be sure that he is indeed eternally secure and forever saved.
Through just four steps of simple logical reasoning, this doctrinal fortress falls to the ground! By its very nature, the doctrine of eternal security is epistemological--that is, it purports to give us the knowledge that we are saved and our glory in Heaven is secure. However, as I just demonstrated, such knowledge is impossible short of a private revelation from God, where the Lord personally tells you that you will "make it."

In fact, let me make my point perfectly understandable by drawing an analogy between "eternal security" and the indissolubility of marriage. The believer in eternal security behaves like the bridgegroom who says to his wife, "This union between you and me cannot be broken by us because God does not allow it; and if, somehow in the future, the union is broken, i.e. if we get divorced, then this proves that there was no union in the first place, that is, the union was only illusory and 'didn't take,' because, otherwise, we could not break it."

How meaningful is that? It's complete nonsense, mere double-talk which deceives people. But this is exactly what such Protestants maintain concerning salvation.

The only way out now for them is another dead end--they can say that the doctrine of eternal security really means that those who are indeed, truly saved will go to Heaven. But that is almost tautological, i.e. redundant: "Those who will be saved will indeed be saved" -- yeah, we knew that before Calvin and other "reformers" already. In fact, we as Catholics believe just that.
Thus, what does the doctrine of eternal security prove to be? It is empty rhetoric, devoid of any significance or meaning. It does not give us any meaningful knowledge or assurance, and so undercuts itself. How much are we reminded of St. Paul's warnings to the Ephesians and St. Timothy::

Ephesians 5:6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

1 Timothy 6:20-21O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Sure, we believe ya, this is the "Catholic" Church.

"Rabbi David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee's international director of interreligious affairs on Thursday became the first Israeli citizen, the first Orthodox rabbi and the fifth living Jew to be invested with a papal knighthood.

Rosen received the decoration and citation attesting to his new status as a Knight Commander of the Pontifical Order of St Gregory the Great at a ceremony hosted at the Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center by the Apostolic Delegate in Jerusalem and Palestine and the Apostolic Nuncio in Israel Archbishop Pietro Sambi."

A person who denies virtually everything that the Holy Roman Catholic Church teaches - is now:

Knight Commander of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great

Friday, November 04, 2005

Hell on earth!

Last night i had a low blood sugar episode in the night (i am a type one diabetic) and was up eating some cookies and i turned on the TV.

Quite a few years ago we disconnected cable because of the horrible immorality on virtually all TV, but we kept the TV so we can rent movies and play the movies that we own.

Now we live in the middle of the cheguamagon national forest, so we only can get two tv stations over the open air, one is a PBS station and the other is an NBC affiliate. We do watch these to some degree, the news mostly, but once and a while some other stuff.

Anyhow, as i said, last night i turned on the TV and the Maury Show was on. The show was about paternity testing. There were several unmarried couples getting paternity tests to see who the father of the baby or child was. There was even a married couple, where the wife was not sure if the husband was the father of their child!

Now the entire premise of the show was shocking to me. There were several cases where the man tested was not the father! Now fornication is sinful enough when it is with one person, but how much more evil is it when these people are fornicating with so many people that they don't even know who the father of their child is? Not to mention the adultresses! And this appears not to be an isolated theme of this show - as all the commercials for upcoming shows were of the same subject matter.

What disturbed me the most was that the audience would react like wild beasts - cheering, screaming, clapping, etc... whenever the mother and potential "father" would be arguing and swearing at each other, and most of all if they physically went after each other!

The audience seemed to thrive on hatred and violence. I take that back, the audience did not seem to thrive on hatred and violence - it did thrive on hatred and violence.

We are really in a sad state. How we must offend our Lord and Blessed Mother. We crucify her Divine Son again and again in the name of "entertainment"!

Thursday, November 03, 2005

A man after my own heart - ;)

Man Kills Buck With Bare Hands in Bedroom

Wed Nov 2, 6:21 PM ET

For 40 exhausting minutes, Wayne Goldsberry battled a buck with his bare hands in his daughter's bedroom.

Goldsberry finally subdued the five-point whitetail deer that crashed through a bedroom window at his daughter's home Friday. When it was over, blood splattered the walls and the deer lay dead on the bedroom floor, its neck broken.
Goldsberry was at his daughter's home when he heard glass breaking. He went back to check on the noise and found the deer.

"I was standing about like this peeking around the corner when the deer came out of the bedroom," said Goldsberry. The deer ran down the hall and into the master bedroom — "jumping back and forth across the bed."

Goldsberry, about 6-feet-1 and 200 pounds, entered the bedroom to confront the deer and, after a brief struggle, emerged to tell his wife to call police. After returning to the bedroom, the fight continued. Goldsberry finally was able to grip the animal and twist its neck, killing it.
Goldsberry, sore from the struggle, dragged the dead animal out of the house.

"He got kicked several times. He was walking bowlegged for a while," Deputy Doug Gay said.
At this time of year, a buck that sees its reflection in a window often charges, believing it is fighting off a rival, Gay said.

Goldsberry had the deer butchered.

"He's in the freezer," the man said before walking to the kitchen and showing off pounds of freshly wrapped venison.

Time Magazine, School Event Expose Massive Cultural Campaign to Promote Homosexuality to Kids 10/7/2005

“Coming out” age has dropped to 10 for boys, 12 for girls, academic says.

A TIME magazine cover story and a recent pro-homosexual school event should leave no doubt that homosexual activists are recruiting kids into homosexual sex and a “gay” identity, using “tolerance” as a ruse.

The TIME October 10 piece, “The Battle Over Gay Teens,” which includes not a single reference to the extremely dangerous medical consequences of homosexual behavior, especially for boys, includes these details:

• A cocktail party in Manhattan with billionaire liquor magnate Edgar Bronfman, Sr. and Clinton political strategist David Mixner was held in May to raise money for the Point Foundation, a scholarship program to turn “gay” kids into homosexual activists.

• From 100 gay/straight alliance (GSA) clubs in schools in 1997, the number has grown to “at least 3,000…nearly 1 in 10 high schools has one, according to the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).”

• The average age of kids “coming out” as homosexual has “dropped to 10 for gays and 12 for lesbians,” according to the chair of Cornell University’s human-development program.

• “Gay kids can now watch fictional and real teens who are out on shows like Desperate Housewives, the dating show Next on MTV and Degrassi (a high school drama on the N network whose wild popularity among adolescents is assured by the fact that few adults watch). Publishers like Arthur A. Levine Books (of Harry Potter fame) and the children’s division of Simon & Schuster have released something like a dozen novels about gay adolescents in the past two years….Gay kids can now subscribe to the 10-month-old glossy YGA Magazine (YGA stands for ‘young, gay America’) and meet thousands of other little gays via young gay america. com (sic) or”

• “‘We’re gonna win,’ says [GLSEN founder Kevin] Jennings, speaking expansively of the gay movement, ‘because of what’s happening in high schools right now.’ … Jennings recalls that when he first started raising money more than a decade ago, ‘the attitude was either “Isn’t it cute that you’re working with kids?” or “Why are you working with kids? What are you, f------ crazy?”’”

Editor’s note: In other settings Jennings has used the “f-word” to dismiss faith-based opponents, and has said he envisions a day when the schools openly embrace homosexuality. At a GLSEN conference, a teacher said she thought it was important to acquaint pupils with homosexuality beginning in kindergarten because “that’s when the saturation process begins.”

• At a youth retreat, the Point Foundation gave out gift bags to students containing, among other things, “a DVD of the film Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in which a teenage boy is masturbated by an adult” and “the Aug. 16 issue of the gay magazine The Advocate, whose cover featured a shirtless man and blared, SUMMER SEX ISSUE.”

• “Because he routinely sees young gays on MTV or even at school, a 14-year-old may now feel comfortable telling friends that he likes other boys, but that doesn’t mean he is ready to enfold himself in a gay identity.”

The article, to its credit, includes passages about the growing ex-“gay” movement, particularly for youths, and quotes Exodus International Youth Director Scott Davis about his group’s ministry, and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) Executive Director Regina Griggs about the discrimination faced by groups that help people overcome homosexual desires.

But the overall impact of the article helps validate the idea of “gay kids,” and will undoubtedly induce some to act out their sexual curiosity since so many others appear to be doing so. The constant focus on homosexuality becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, much as TIME’s frequent articles during the 1960s and 1970s about the “growing phenomenon” of illicit drug use helped spur some kids to try marijuana and LSD.

A Week-Long Effort in the Schools

GLSEN, meanwhile, has been extremely active in the schools. Their most recent effort, “National Ally Week,” was held September 19-24.

According to GLSEN’s Web site, more than 300 gay/straight alliance groups registered to pass out buttons, organize gender education activities, and promote the homosexual lifestyle. Ally Week encourages the recruitment of “straight” students as allies in the fight against bullying of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) students. The “straight” allies are encouraged to speak out in defense of homosexuality.

GLSEN passed out “I am an ALLY” buttons through the GSAs, and the Web site encouraged students to arrange more specific activities to promote acceptance of “gay” students. The listed events included:

• “Organizing LGBT pizza parties, and after-school activities like LGBT Jeopardy or LGBT bingo.

• Informative tabling in school cafeterias.
• Student and/or teacher training workshops.
• Asking allies to attend regular GSA meetings.
• Constructing pro-LGBT bulletin boards.
• Bringing a local LGBT speaker to the school.”

Last April, GLSEN sponsored the annual “Day of Silence,” in which kids are supposed to remain silent all day in support of their “gay” classmates. April 26, 2006, is the next “Day of Silence.”
This past January, GLSEN headed the coalition sponsoring “No-Name Calling Week,” another platform for discouraging resistance to the promotion of homosexuality to school kids, with the next edition slated in January 2006. In effect, schoolchildren across the nation are being subjected to homosexual propaganda in schools via an event every few months.
GLSEN encourages teachers to organize and participate in GSA events. The group provides a web link that supplies educators with pro-LGBT resources. These include “gender liberation” coloring books; “gay” cartoon posters; and several posters challenging traditional views of gender. Teachers can download signs with inverted, rainbow-colored triangles proclaiming “Safe Zone” to put on their classroom door. They can also print off discussion kits on how to organize gender education sessions and start conversations about homosexuality with the children.
One poster, titled, “Things you can do to eradicate gender or multiply it exponentially,” features cross-dressing, and has these suggestions:

• “Think twice before you ask people if their child is a boy or a girl.
• Spend a day in drag.
• Refer to everyone by the incorrect pronoun.
• Challenge binary gender paradigms over Thanksgiving dinner.
• Hang out with children and teach them how to cross dress Barbie and G.I. Joe.
• Refuse to check off your sex when filling out forms.”

Clearly, the homosexual movement's effort to recruit children has never been stronger than it is now.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005


God's promise of his truth to us and its preservation till the end of time


God wanted us to know and live in the truth. How did he communicate it to us? What did he do to preserve it? These are questions that are essential in every Christian's life. In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul writes:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

St. Paul is charging Timothy with an Apostle's mission, so that Timothy becomes a successor of St. Paul, not as an Apostle, but as the successor of an Apostle (that is, Timothy was not considered as belonging to the Apostles, as Matthias was). Paul tells Timothy to endure fervently and preach the word of Truth, the true Gospel, and he warns him that there will be times when people won't listen to that true Word but rather to a gospel fashioned according to their own likings.

This has been the Catholic position throughout the ages. One must be charged with the mission to teach by an Apostle or a successor thereof, taking as the rule of faith the Verbum Dei, the Word of God, whether transmitted in written or in oral form: "Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 1:13). The true rule of faith for Timothy, and therefore for all bishops and those entrusted with the mission of teaching the True Gospel, is what the Apostles themselves have transmitted; this we call the "Deposit of Faith." St. Paul explicitly says how Timothy is supposed to guard just that very true Gospel: "Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us" (2 Timothy 1:14). Notice that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit "that dwells within us"; the "us" indicates that both of them possess a certain gift of the Holy Spirit. Which one? Let's see: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate" (1 Timothy 4:14). It is the gift Timothy received through ordination from St. Paul and the other bishops and presbyters. St. Paul makes clear that this is what he is referring to by linking it directly to Timothy's teaching mission only two verses later: "Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you" (1 Timothy 4:16).

In the Old Testament we already find succession and transmission of authority, in much the same way even: Joshua became the successor of Moses. How? Through the laying on of hands:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him; cause him to stand before Eleazar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey. And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.” (Numbers 27:18-21)

Now Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with the spirit of wisdom, since Moses had laid his hands upon him; and so the Israelites gave him their obedience, thus carrying out the LORD’S command to Moses. (Deuteronomy 34:9)

As we have seen, St. Paul did the same thing with Timothy, charging him to preach what Timothy had been taught by Paul. Thus, Timothy had received the same authority as Paul, and the people had to obey Timothy. This is how the truth was to get to us in every age: through the choosing and ordination of successors, who are charged with what their predecessors were charged: teaching what they have received in the Deposit of Faith.

Jesus once prophesied that we would know the truth. He said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).

How we get this truth we have already seen: we listen to our bishop, a successor of the Apostles, for he is charged with teaching what is in the Deposit of Faith. He has received this authority in virtue of his appointment by the Pope. Our bishops, then, we must obey and believe when they teach on matters of faith and morals, and they are infallible with they thus teach in union with the Pope and thus the Universal Church. So, the bishops are responsible for teaching the truth, not each individual Christian. The Bible confirms this:

"Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you" (Hebrews 13:17).

This is how we are taught the truth. This is the only way we can be sure to know what is true. The Pope watches the bishops and appoints and removes them. Of course the Pope's teaching authority is even higher than that of the bishop, and if a bishop teaches error, the Pope must correct or remove and replace him. The teaching of the Pope is passed on to the faithful through the bishops.

Jesus himself said we would know the truth (John 8:32). In his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul makes just that point:

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

Powerful words! Given all of this, which other way is there for Jesus' command to be fulfilled or for Him to teach us the Truth and nothing but the Truth throughout all time?

Let's look at some of the alternatives that we are being offered. There's the Protestant way: "Read the Bible and ask your pastor. And if you disagree with him, go to a different church or just start your own." Sounds more like a flat contradiction to John 8:32. Non-Catholic Christians want to take the Bible as their authority, but the interpretation often falls to that of mere men, who disagree with each other, and since the Holy Spirit can't be in disagreement with Himself, there is clearly a problem in arriving at the truth this way.

Then there is the Mormon way: "We are the True Church!" A claim that deserves research, yet the latter stops at 1820. Or, how about the Seventh-Day Adventist proclamation of truth: "The Bible only, but with our conclusions, not with Protestant conclusions." Uh-huh. So that's what we have there.

Only the Catholic Church has a direct link to the Apostles. (The Eastern Orthodox Church does, too, but it split in 1054 and did not persevere in the doctrine handed on to the Church and was excommunicated by the Pope). It is thus the Catholic Church alone who can claim apostolic succession. No wonder other denominations deny apostolic succession--they have to, otherwise they could never justify their own churches and the doctrines they have. They must claim apostolic succession has nothing to do with the transmission of the truth. This is the only possibility for their teachings to seem believable.

The truth comes down to us from Christ through the Apostles and their successors, and not, as others think, by each individual's best guesses of what this or that Bible passage might mean. No, the New Testament nowhere states that any person can teach the True Gospel by simply flipping through the Scriptures. It warns against those who are "wanting to be teachers of the law" but are not (1 Timothy 1:7). It says that we can only teach one another what has been transmitted by the authorities (Romans 6:17; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 13:17), and that the authorities must be appointed by their predecessors (Colossians 1:28; 1 Timothy 4:11; 2 Timothy 1:11, 2:2).

This is the truth. The Gospel Truth. It is the only way to make sense out of Jesus' prophecy, "And you will know the truth" (John 8:32). Glory to him forever and ever. The Gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18).

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

"The Greatest Generation"

We have been told many times over that the WWII generation is the greatest generation. Tom Brokaw, the famous news anchor coined the phrase in a book he wrote. The term seems to apply to people, specifically Americans, born between 1911 and 1924, giver or take a few years. It seems that this title revolved around WWII and the sacrifices that were made during the war. While, i agree that many people made personal sacrifices for this war, there were many other generations throughout history that made even greater sacrifices. For example, more Americans died in the Civl war than in all other wars fought by America combined.

I would even go as far as to say that WWII was not even a successful war. Britain for example, declared war on Germany to free Poland from a tyrancial government. After the war was Poland free? The United States declared war on Germany for the primary purpose of stopping Hilter from taking over Europe, yet after the war - we handed half of Europe to Stalin a far more murderous tyrant that Hitler could ever have hoped to be in his worst nighmare!

I could site many more reasons why I think WWII was a complete failure, but that is not the point of this little article. It cannot be denied that a great many people of that generation sacrificed much, sometimes all, for what they believed was the right thing to do, and honor is due them for that. I am actually more concerned with what this generation did after the war.

This generation basically ran the world beginning in the 1960's and through the mid 1980's. I say this in that, in most cases people do not hold any type of important office in public life or religious life until they are in their mid 30's to 40's and usually hold these positions until at least their 60's.

What was the world like and what changes were made to the world during the time that the "greatest generation" controlled the world?

During the 1960's the "free-love drug infested hippie movement" began. It began with the the children of this "greatest generation". It begs the question - what kind of morals were these children raised with? Some argue that this all began on the college campus', to which i would respond by stating that it was the "greatest generation" who were the teaching body of these colleges.

It was the "greatest generation" that took women from their roles as mothers and wives and brought them into the workforce, thereby abandoning their duty as mothers. During the war, much of this was done for the war effort. Women filled the roles of the men that went to war and went to work in the factories. The problem is that they did not want to give up this illusion of freedom and independence and they actively worked to promote the beginnings of the radical feminst agenda.

It was during the rule of the "greatest generation" that immorality began its most horrid incline. The brutal murder of unborn babies became not only legal, but a right during their reign. Laws that prohibitted sodomy, audultery, fornication were all tossed off the books under the rule of this generation.

The "greatest generation" presided over and allowed the complete abandonment of the Holy Catholic Faith. Shortly after the heretical Vatican II "council" it was this generation who sat on the Parish Councils and made decissions to turn our once beatiful Catholic churches into gymnasiums and built gymnasiums and call them churches! It was this generation that sat back and allowed the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be replaced by the abomination unto desolation!

It is the greed of this generation that can be seen everywhere from demands for discounts on nearly everything they purchase (senior discounts), to demanding payment for burial honors for fallen comrades, as the American Legion and VFW posts now do! This generation has had the ability to earn more money and spend less than any generation has before it or since it. This generation has plenty of money to spend at casino's, but they need a discount on every other puchase they make - a discount that is paid for by everyone else.

Now i realize that these statements are generalizations and do not necessarily apply to each and every member of this generation. I also fully realize that some of what happened, happened by circumstances beyond this generations control.

But to call this generation the "greatest generation" - now that is one HUGE generalization, that i believe is almost entirely baseless.

There are a great number of people from a great many other generations much more worthy of this title.