Monday, January 30, 2006

Brave New World Order

U.N. pushing to end nation-states
Plan drafted to end disease, poverty, war

The U.N. has a plan to make every Miss America Pageant contestant happy by bringing about "world peace."

All it will take, says the draft of a visionary proposal by the U.N. Development Program, is to getting rid of all the pesky nations of the world.

In fact, the plan endorsed by prominent world figures including Nobel laureates, bankers, politicians and economists to end nation-states as we know them is also designed to end health pandemics, poverty and "global warming." So far, the U.N. hasn't mentioned whether the proposal will do anything for obesity....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It's the thing fundamentalist Christians and conservative patriots have been warning us about for decades. Many in the U.N. are advocating the creation of the ultimate "New World Order" -- the end of national sovereignty worldwide. To solve the world's problems, the U.N. proposes we put all our eggs into one basket. That way, if one basket should become corrupt, the corruption will be spread equally to all governments of the world. Sounds like a great idea huh?

But what does the teaching of the Catholic Church have to say about this?

Catechism of the Catholic Church...

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

What many in the U.N. are proposing is just that. They're saying, turn over your national sovereignty to us, and all your problems will be solved. (And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.) "Secular messianism," as the Church calls it, is the term. I couldn't possibly think of a better way to describe such a proposal.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Knights Of Columbus Officially Endorse Judge Alito

Knights of Columbus endorses nomination of Samuel Alito to Supreme Court
Resolution praises his views on religious liberty

(NEW YORK, NY) - In a resolution adopted unanimously by its Board of Directors, the Knights of Columbus has endorsed the nomination of federal circuit judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The action, taken during the board's quarterly meeting in New York City, called upon "members of the United States Senate to vote in a timely manner to confirm" him as associate justice.

The resolution observed that "during his fifteen years as a federal judge [Alito] has articulated a clear and well-reasoned view of the religion clauses of the First Amendment that is protective of religious liberty and which incorporates an appropriately broad view of the Constitution's guarantee of religious free exercise."

"Samuel Alito is a distinguished and highly regarded judge," the resolution continued, adding that he "demonstrated exceptional knowledge of Constitutional law and a laudable judicial temperament during hearings on his nomination." It noted that he "has been found to be 'well qualified' for that position by the American Bar Association."

The Knights of Columbus is the world's largest lay Catholic organization, with more than 1.7 million members in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Philippines.

Friday, January 27, 2006

Pope: Democracy without "values" is totalitarianism

(AGI) - Vatican City, Jan. 27 - "A democracy without values can easily turn into an open or hidden totalitarianism as history teaches us" said Pope Benedict XVI reiterating the basic concept of John Paul II's "Centesimus annus".

This way, he once again invited the Associations of Italian Christian Workers to "make sure that consensus grows for a number of shared values". Otherwise, "our call for democracy risks turning into a mere formality stressing differences and exacerbating problems".

Explaining that "democracy alone can ensure equality and rights for all" Pope Ratzinger stressed that "democracy and justice are somehow interdependent": "justice is a benchmark for democracy". Finally, the Pope said that "our search for the truth leads to a real rather than superficial democracy".

read full article here

Alito Filibuster?

Judge Samuel Alito has run the gauntlet, and liberal Democrats are scrambling in an uphill battle to filibuster his confirmation vote to the United States Supreme Court. In the hope of avoiding any charges of bigotry, Democrats trotted out one of their most prize fossils to rally the troops -- none other then the most self-loathing Catholic on capital hill -- Senator John Kerry. Kerry called for a filibuster of Judge Alito today, attempting to block any possibility of another practicing Catholic being seated on the nation's highest court. Almost simultaneously three key Democrats in the Senate defected from the party line opposition, announcing they would vote for Alito's confirmation.

Let's not beat around the bush anymore and just cut to the chase. This isn't really about Judge Sam Alito. This is about abortion -- plain and simple. It's also about bigotry. You see, any judge President Bush nominates for Supreme Court Justice is going to be scrutinized by the Left, because the Democratic Party bows down to the alter of abortion-on-demand. Of course, in Judge Alito's case we have the history of a moderate ruling judge who has received the highest praise possible from everyone he's ever worked with -- especially the Democratic aids he's hired in the past. His rulings have a record of being fair-minded and balanced. He's shown no evidence of trying to advance his own agenda or judicial activism. Yet, liberal Democrats on the Hill are accusing him of being a "radical extremist," and a "threat to American jurisprudence." Why? The answer is simple. Judge Sam Alito is a practicing Catholic, and the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a grave sin. Therefore, any judicial nominee who practices Catholicism will be viewed as a "radical extremist" by the new left-wing loonies running the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter if the nominee is a man or a woman. It doesn't matter if he's black or white. It doesn't even matter if he has a moderate and level-headed record. If he's Catholic -- he's a problem.

You see, according to the rationale of the new left-wing Democrats, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic -- one who doesn't practice Catholicism. In order to receive approval from the liberals on Capitol Hill; a Catholic has to in some way voice opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Senator John Kerry is a perfect example. Here we have a "Catholic" Senator, (and I'm using the word "Catholic" very loosely), who publicly opposes the Church's teaching on abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, homosexuality and gay marriage. The Church has not taken Kerry lightly on these matters either. After warning him to cease and desist his public assault on Catholicism, Kerry has steadfastly refused to disengage. Because of that, he has now been publicly barred from receiving communion anywhere in the Catholic Church, and formal charges of heresy have been filed against him in the Diocese of Boston's ecclesiastical court system. He now stands in danger of formal excommunication. But as far as what the liberal loonies think; John Kerry is just the little darling of the new Democratic Party.

In contrast now, we have Judge Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts -- both practicing Catholics. You can't convince me that the Left's fear of Catholicism isn't playing a role in liberal hostility toward them. They're trying to keep their true feelings under raps, but occasionally they slip out.

Of Judge Alito, Eleanor Smeal (president of the Feminist Majority) warned that if he becomes a Supreme Court Justice, "the majority of the Court would be Roman Catholics, which would underrepresent other religions, not to mention nonbelievers." NPR reporter Dahlia Lithwick exclaimed, "People are very, very much talking about the fact that Alito would be the fifth Catholic on the Supreme Court if confirmed." And CBS reporter Mike Wallace snidely commented: "He's a nice Catholic boy and he doesn’t believe in abortions."

Even these shocking comments have been purposely toned down from previous anti-Catholic rhetoric prior to the John Roberts confirmation. Left-wing liberals suffered a backlash after comments like these.
George Soros of approved a picture of a smiling Pope Benedict XVI holding a gavel outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Above the picture was the following inscription: "God Already has a Job. He does not need one on the Supreme Court. Protect the Supreme Court Rules." Rob Boston, Americans United for Separation of Church and State: "Although no direct ties between Roberts and Religious Right groups have surfaced, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has ties to an anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life. Jane Roberts served on the organization’s board of directors from 1995-99 and did free legal work for it. She also works for the John Carroll Society, a conservative Catholic group that sponsors an annual 'Red Mass' for members of the Supreme Court and others in the legal profession. In Washington, Catholic bishops often use the mass [sic] to put the church’s views of issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and parochial school aid before the justices. The couple, described by acquaintances as devout Roman Catholics, has two children and attends the Church of the Little Flower, a growing parish in Bethesda, Md., whose congregation includes many powerful D.C.-area Catholics. If confirmed, Roberts will become the fourth Catholic on the court. Although religious affiliation is not always indicative of judicial philosophy, Roberts' theological views have sparked a minor flap." Time magazine: The fifth of "Five Things You Need to Know About Roberts," opens with the following: "Roberts is a Catholic who attends a traditional church in Maryland." Christopher D. Morris, Vermont writer and critic, wrote, "If the bishops repeated or confirmed their threats, the Senate Judiciary Committee should draft legislation calling for the automatic recusal of Catholic judges from cases citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent." Former New York mayor, Mario Cuomo, said he would like to see John Roberts asked: "Are you going to impose a religious test on the Constitution? Are you going to say that because the pope says this or the Church says that, you will do it in no matter what?" Larry King said: "Anyone have a problem on him being a devout Catholic?" John MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s Magazine, said: "The Roberts couple seem to be very well-educated; I wonder whether in their high-minded socializing with Clarence and Virginia Thomas (at the College of the Holy Cross) and Robert and Mary Ellen Bork (at the lay Catholic John Carroll Society), they find time for informal book chat…." Dahlia Lithwick, legal analyst for Slate: "And I wouldn’t underestimate the influence of his religion, that Scalia and Thomas, one of the very reasons they may not have drifted leftward has a lot to do with very, very strong religious views that pull them to the right. And I think that probably John Roberts will fall into that camp in that sense." Frances Kissling said: "If this pope will intervene in the ways he has already in Europe, it certainly raises questions for us in the immediate sense of whether he thinks he can tell Roberts how to vote when he gets on the Supreme Court." Bill Press said: "It is absolutely essential to explore Roberts’ religious beliefs as part of the confirmation process." He then added, "Fair to question Roberts about his faith? Of course it is. And those who suggest otherwise should not be taken seriously." Senator Dick Durbin: According to law professor Jonathan Turley, "Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral." Durbin then disputed that he made this remark and Turley responded by saying Durbin made the comment in the NBC makeup room on July 24; Turley also said that he cleared Durbin’s quip with the senator’s press secretary, Joe Shoemaker. Senator Dick Durbin: CNN correspondent Ed Henry, "Now, Senator Durbin, who is Catholic himself, told me today that he believes he needs to look at everything, including the nominee’s faith, as he takes a measure of the man, in this case, Judge Roberts." Tony Harris, CNN Anchor: "Roberts is a Roman Catholic and a political conservative. This week on our 'Faces of Faith' segment we’re going to examine how his faith might influence his profession." CNN flashed two responses to its e-mail question, "What would you ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts?" They were as follows: a) "If being a devout Catholic would have an influence on any Roe versus Wade decisions, this is very important," and b) "I hope I would ask Roberts if be believes in the separation of church and state." Nina Totenberg on NPR said: "Don’t forget his wife was an officer, a high officer of a pro-life organization. He’s got adopted children. I mean, he’s a conservative Catholic." Suzanne Malveaux on CNN "Inside Politics" said: "We’ve learned a lot more about him in the last 12 hours. We know he’s Roman Catholic. We know his wife is a part of a group, a pro-life organization here. What does that say about the candidate? How important is that going to be in this confirmation?" To which Donna Brazile responded, "I think it's going to be one of the many issues that gets scrutinized when members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sit and talk to him about his views." ...And the list goes on and on. I'm just scratching the surface here.

Clearly, after the backlash from Catholic advocacy groups over the Judge Roberts nomination, the Left was given marching orders to "tone it down." But those who have eyes can see the bigotry right in front of them. The New Left has taken the anti-Catholic torch from the Old Right, and as an ironic twist of history, the Republicans have now become the biggest advocates for Catholics in American government. It's just food for thought in this up coming week.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Pope B16's First Encyclical



1. “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life” (3:16). In acknowledging the centrality of love, Christian faith has retained the core of Israel's faith, while at the same time giving it new depth and breadth. The pious Jew prayed daily the words of the Book of Deuteronomy which expressed the heart of his existence: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might” (6:4-5). Jesus united into a single precept this commandment of love for God and the commandment of love for neighbour found in the Book of Leviticus: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (19:18; cf. Mk 12:29-31). Since God has first loved us (cf. 1 Jn 4:10), love is now no longer a mere “command”; it is the response to the gift of love with which God draws near to us.

In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengeance or even a duty of hatred and violence, this message is both timely and significant. For this reason, I wish in my first Encyclical to speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in turn must share with others. That, in essence, is what the two main parts of this Letter are about, and they are profoundly interconnected. The first part is more speculative, since I wanted here—at the beginning of my Pontificate—to clarify some essential facts concerning the love which God mysteriously and gratuitously offers to man, together with the intrinsic link between that Love and the reality of human love. The second part is more concrete, since it treats the ecclesial exercise of the commandment of love of neighbour. The argument has vast implications, but a lengthy treatment would go beyond the scope of the present Encyclical. I wish to emphasize some basic elements, so as to call forth in the world renewed energy and commitment in the human response to God's love...

read full encyclical here

Monday, January 23, 2006


The days of legalized abortion-on-demand are numbered in the USA. Constitutional scholars and lawmakers have now devised a way of bringing an end to this heinous practice in a way that the U.S. Supreme Court has already outlined. I can give you the information folks, but in order to be worth anything, YOU HAVE GOT TO get up off the couch and do something. Write your U.S. congressman and senator today, and tell him/her to support the "Right To Life Act."

Don't know who your U.S. Congressman and Senators are?
Click Here to Find Out

Superficial Condoms in Colombia

Got your attention with that title!

Priest calls proposal mandating citizens to carry condom superficial

BOGOTA, Colombia (CNS) -- A Tulua city councilman's proposal to require all citizens age 14 and older to carry a condom "seems a little superficial," said a local parish priest. Father Roberto Sarmiento of St. Bartholomew Church in Tulua, a university city with a population of about 200,000, said carrying condoms would make little difference without a change in mentality. Read more here.

...because we all know how effective condoms are, especially ones that are exposed to prolonged heat by being carried around by a 14 year old. You might as well carry around a roll of rice paper. Same effect.

The priest is partially right for saying it "seems a little superficial." It seems a whole lot superficial. Like putting duct tape on a door ding to make it look better.

Tax-dollars to Catholic Schools?

Hurricane aid: Catholic schools getting portion of federal help

By Carol Zimmermann
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- There were times during the congressional hearings on hurricane school aid that Catholic school officials thought they would walk away empty-handed.

But after months of debate and fine-tuning of the legislative proposals, Congress ended up giving Catholic schools damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita or inundated with evacuee students the green light to request a percentage of the federal help offered to public schools. Read more here.

In light of the Blaine amendment discussions, I suppose it is possible for the Congress to approve monies to private schools. Apparently, public education will not crumble under such a blow. If you look at it another way, it was these Catholic schools that alleviated the pressure on the public schools. Once again, the private school systems outperform the public ones.

Making Trouble with Email

If you believe in something, I really think you should do a little something about it.  Here is a string of emails that I send out in righteous trouble making and glad-handing.  Blogging and posting comments is one thing, but getting out there and taking further action is quite another!  Go make some legal and morally correct trouble!

Email #1 – Senator Mazzei – Oklahoma State Sentator

Dear Senator Mazzei,
As you may already know, in the upcoming session of the Oklahoma Senate there will be several bills that pertain to the growing concern of the government abuse of eminent domain laws. I urge you, for the sake of individual liberty, to support the protection of Oklahomans against the heavy hand of the government.  As with the case of Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, in the desire to have economic development for that region of Tulsa County, but with the lack of protection for the individual rights to property, we see the growing political nightmare.
I wish you the best in this upcoming session and you have my continued support as you work for the betterment of the people of you region.


Thank you for your inquiry about eminent domain issues in Oklahoma.  We have legislators and attorneys now studying how best to tackle the issue in Oklahoma so that a situation similar to the one in New Jersey does not occur here.  I plan on supporting their efforts.
Senator Mike Mazzei
(via executive secretary Pam Hodges)

Email #2 – To NewTalk KRMG (Tulsa, OK)
KRMG news crew,
Long time listener, first time...emailer.
I am sure you are following this story, but I would love to hear more about it on the air.  I am sure that this has the potential to go national.  
The eminent domain case of Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Spring, making way for some big-box stores, and the conflict with the 2025 plan was just feature in an article (Jan 17th) on National Review Online.  It would be great to hear from Reverend Gildon and the proponents of 2025.  
Hi Josh,
I've been following this story closely. When there's actual eminent domain issues involved in it, I will get involved also.
Joe Kelley
KRMG Morning News Host
News Talk 740 KRMG
Tulsa, OK

Hey Josh:
Thanks for the e-mail. I've been out for the last few days.... but I'll get someone on it....
Thanks for the tip. Appreciate you listening
John Durkee
News Director
Cox Radio-Tulsa
KRMG, K95.5FM, Mix 96, Star 103.3FM and the New Spirit 102.3

Email #3 – Heather Wilhelm, the National Review Online writer who broke the story
I wanted to write and say "thank you" for bringing to my attention the issue of Centennial Baptist Church in Sand Springs, OK.  Outraged at the action of the 2025 project, I plan to take my own actions and make sure that this is played in the media more than it already is.
I hope all is well in Chicago.  I am from that area and miss my Cubs.  Give a "hello" to Wrigley Field from me.
Response -
Hi Josh,
Thanks for writing.   I'm really happy that you can help out.   You should get in touch with Pat Highland...she's putting together the coalition to fight this in Oklahoma.   Her cell phone number is (918) 688-5962.
Best wishes.  I'll keep my fingers crossed for the Cubs.

Quote of the Day

A minute ago I ran across this quote and wanted to share it. Oklahoma’s beloved son, Will Rogers, said in his distinctive Midwest repartee, “Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.”  So true!

Friday, January 20, 2006

Queerly Beloved -- Canadian Style

Gays rush to altar, fearing marriage law at risk

Gay couples across Canada are rushing to the altar, worried that a possible Conservative government will reverse the legalization of same sex marriages.

David Lockwood and Jason Cass got married Wednesday in Toronto.

"We decided Saturday night (to get married) Wednesday afternoon. The election is Monday. We wanted to do it before Monday," Cass said.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said at the beginning of the election campaign that he would allow a free vote on the issue if the Conservatives form the next government...

read full story here

Do you think Liberals in Canada have gone too far? Is it possible that Canada may experience a Conservative revolution in the upcoming election do to this issue? Record your predictions here...

Stealing God's House in Oklahoma

From National Review Online, by Heather Wilhelm

Since the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision last summer, eminent domain has entered a new frontier. It’s not just grandma’s house we have to worry about. Now it’s God’s house, too. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important,” says Reverend Gildon, his voice wry, “as raking in money for politicians to spend.” The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot.
Read more here…

The Oklahoma Constitution reads:

Section II-23:
Private property
- Taking or damaging for private use.

No private property shall be taken or damaged for private use, with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, or for drains and ditches across lands of others for agricultural, mining, or sanitary purposes, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.

I do not believe that the private commercial development is considered to be “private ways of necessity.” The Vision 2025 needs to refocused. The grabbing of private property, and now private church property, is so unbelievably un-American and unethical. To do something about this, contact Oklahomans in Action. (

Catholics in American Politics

As we approach the 2008 elections, not that you should forget the ones in between, as Catholics we have a growing voice in American politics. In the last presidential election, the views of Catholics became the new “soccer moms” of previous elections. We see over and over the differences in voting habits of practicing Catholics, non-practicing, occasional practicing and whatever else the pollsters can come-up with. The greatest outgrowth of the emerging Catholic voice is the increased activity into politics for these individuals. So what are your ideas to promote Catholic views in the public debate? Do you take a pragmatic view or a spiritual one? Do Catholic views find their home in the Republican, Democrat or another political party?

The Unbelievable Hillary Clinton

The junior senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, showed the fact that her hypocrisy knows no bounds. I would even assume that a novice political observer would take note. Speaking on the topic of Iran she said of the Bush administration, “I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations…I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

Excuse me?!? Who said that? Hillary Clinton? She is opposed to deferring our national security to the UN? Since when? What about the threats in Iraq? What did she have to say about that?

In her speech from the floor to authorize the use of force in Iraq:

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security….
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.…

Hillary has triangulated and tried to play the centrist on the Iraq issue. Now she is coming out looking like a Hawk on the Iran issue.

Iran is shifting its moneys out of European banks. They are preparing for a showdown. Even the UN is paying attention, calling an emergency meeting on Feb 2nd. Russia and China are tentatively in support of dealing with this rouge nation.

The Middle East is changing about as fast as Hillary’s positions on war. We cannot afford this woman as our next president.

An Open Letter to Missouri's State Legislature

Posted: January 21st 2006

Copies Sent:

Speaker Rod Jetton
President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons
Governor Matt Blunt

The Speaker and President Pro Tem were asked to provide copies to all members of the Missouri State Legislature.


Dear Senators and Representatives of the Missouri State Legislature,

I am asking that our state constitutional "Blaine Amendment" (Article I, Section 7; and Article IX, Section 8) be repealed, as it is fundamentally discriminatory by nature, and was originally designed for anti-Catholic purposes. Today, 37 states have provisions placing some form of restriction on government aid to "sectarian" schools that go beyond any limits in the U.S. Constitution. The word "sectarian" is important, because at the time of the Blaine Amendment's passage, mainstream Protestantism was not considered "sectarian" and Protestant Bibles (along with Protestant prayers) were regularly used in public schools. Until recently, it had not been widely known that Blaine amendments were passed as a direct result of the nativist, anti-Catholic bigotry that was a recurring theme in American politics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. More information can be obtained on this at the following Internet website:

In the Supreme Court's 'Mitchell v. Helms' decision, the four-Justice plurality explicitly recognized that the term "pervasively sectarian" in First Amendment jurisprudence has a "shameful pedigree." Justice Breyer's dissent in 'Zelman v. Simmons-Harris' further develops the theme, and makes clear that the Court now recognizes that many of its school funding decisions rest on shaky ground. (Zelman held that well designed school voucher programs do not violate the Establishment Clause). Thus, the Supreme Court has effectively cleared the last remaining federal obstacle to school-choice programs.

Missouri's Blaine Amendment acts as an obstacle to the rights of Missouri's Catholics, as well as Christians of other denominations, to educate their children as they see fit. I view this more as a civil-rights issue than an educational one. As a Catholic Missourian, I believe my state's Blaine Amendment was originally designed as a discriminatory practice against people like me (Catholics) based entirely on our religion. It's original purpose was to keep us from educating our children in parochial schools, economically forcing them into public schools, and thus making them more susceptible to the non-Catholic influences there. When the Blaine Amendment was originally passed, that influence was Protestant in nature. In modern times, that influence has become more secular and humanist in nature. I understand that other Christians, along with Jews and Muslims, now suffer the same injustice along side me, due to the dogmatic (albeit misguided) belief in an impervious "wall of separation" between church and state -- especially in the area of education. So Missouri's Blaine Amendment, originally designed to discriminate against Missouri's Catholics, has now become an equal opportunity offender, discriminating against all people of faith regardless of religion or denomination. This is unfortunate and tragic. Yet, historically speaking, this reprehensible provision in our state's constitution was originally designed to target people of my own religion (Catholicism). It is especially frustrating to know that a certain state-sanctioned bigotry, originally directed toward people like me, has now come to hurt so many other people of different faiths and denominations.

I am asking you to represent Missouri's Catholics, (and thus all people of faith), by introducing legislation to repeal Missouri's discriminatory Blaine Amendment (Article I, Section 7; and Article IX, Section 8), and along with that, introduce legislation attaching Missouri's educational funds to the children of Missouri directly, rather than to specific public schools. This would allow the funds to be used specifically for education only, in whatever schools their parents deem appropriate. I ask this not only for the sake of my own children's education, but also for their civil rights and my civil rights as a Catholic parent. I am asking you to bring an end to the historical legacy of Missouri's anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment.

On Jan. 13, 2006, ABC's "20/20" featured a story by John Stossel, who showed how well students do in Belgium's "school-choice" system. Belgium's children are free to be educated in any school their parent's choose -- including religious schools -- because state money is attached to the child, not a particular school. So wherever the child goes to school, the state money (designated for educational purposes only) goes with him/her. ABC News gave part of an international test to students in Belgium and students in New Jersey. The Belgian students did much better than the New Jersey students. I would encourage you to acquire a transcript of this story from ABC for more information.

I thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your action on this matter.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

EU Forces Gay Marriage on Everyone! -- Or Else!

EU states warned to accept same-sex marriage

Strasburg, Jan. 19 ( - The justice minister of the European Union, Franco Frattini, announced this week at the EU parliament in Strasburg that member states which do not eliminate all forms of discrimination against homosexuals, including the refusal to approve “marriage” and unions between same-sex couples, would be subject to sanctions and eventual expulsion from the EU....

read full story here

The tyranny of relativism now reigns supreme in Europe. The only question that remains is what does it signify? Does it signify the beginning of persecutions for Christians in Europe? Or does it signify the fall and decline of the European Union? Does it signify both? Only time will tell.

Soviet Union Tried To Assassinate Pope

Agca: KGB Asked me to Shoot the Pope

Letters written by Mehmet Ali Agca, who was convicted for attempting to assassinate Pope Jean Paul II and for the murder Turkish journalist-writer Abdi Ipekci, are one by one coming to light.

Agca, in a letter dated 26 January 2001, claimed the Russian Intelligence Service (KGB) ordered him to shoot the Pope.

He also wrote to Italian journalist Sabina Castelfranco about his contacts with KGB member Soviet General Vlademir Kuzinski...

read full story here

The truth is starting to come out now. The old Soviet Union (birthplace of communism) ordered the assassination of Pope John Paul II back in 1981. What is starting to unfold on history's pages; faithful Catholics have known for decades. The prophecies of Fatima foretold them in 1917, and the Vatican confirmed them in 2000. (read Vatican confirmation of Fatima prophecies here) The massage of Fatima was clear. Communism was a great scourge set upon the earth, and the children of Fatima warned us to repent and pray. Failure to do so would allow communism to spread throughout the world, and ultimately result in the assassination of the pope. From the way history unfolded, it would appear we can conclude Catholics did repent and pray, but just barely enough. Communism did spread it's evil to the farthest reaches of the globe, and the pope barely escaped that assassination attempt with his life. Yes, the Church repented and prayed, but just barely enough to change the course of history. Because of this, Pope John Paul II led the crusade against communism in Poland, and the Soviet failure there led to a domino effect that ultimately resulted in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union itself.

What is the lesson we can take from Fatima. I believe the lesson is simply to repent and pray for the conversion of the world. I believe it's universal meaning applies just as much to the current struggles we now face with radical Islam. The message of Pope John Paul to the world was "Do not be afraid." In Christ we have nothing to fear, and John Paul demonstrated that in his own life, not just his words alone. He stood up to the communists, as a man of peace, insisting on the rights of the people. He was fearless in his vigilance against the injustices of communism. We must be the same way in our current struggles against radical Islam abroad and the tyranny of relativism here at home. Be not afraid. The message of Fatima has shown us the way through our modern times.

The Liberal Goatherd

Satirical Look at Hearings A Parody of Sound of Music Song

WASHINGTON —Fidelis, a Catholic based advocacy group announced the launched an internet-based animated advertising campaign to coincide with the confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito. The initial ad is designed to illustrate the heavy influence of Left wing groups over Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and shows how the radical agenda championed by these groups will likely dictate much of the attacks on Alito during his confirmation hearings.

“The ad reveals the unfortunate reality of the Left and their allies in the Senate—liberals who want to use activist judges to implement a far left policy agenda that a vast majority of Americans simply do not support,” Fidelis President Joseph Cella stated.

The ad is a parody of The Sound of Music’s “The Lonely Goatherd” by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and takes a satirical look at the Alito hearings and the beliefs that connect liberal groups and their allies in the Senate.

Cella continued: “I think it’s important to show how many of the Senators that attack Judge Alito are working hand in glove with the leadership of far left wing groups that have a policy agenda to protect. Rather than a real debate about the proper role of a judge, the law and the Constitution, Senators and many left wing groups declare Alito unfit because he refuses to commit to enacting their policy preferences from the bench.”

“The paranoid and cynical campaign by liberal groups and their allies in the Senate is so far outside the mainstream it is difficult to take it seriously. Judge Alito has consistently shown himself to be a careful judge who consistently applies the law ignoring the policy preferences of both the left and the right. Our ad, while light hearted in nature, presents a creative opportunity to show how out of touch the Left and their allies in the Senate are with the rest of America,” Cella stated.

Click here to view “The Liberal Goatherd”.

To learn more about Fidelis, log onto

Guessing the State of the Union

As we approach the State of the Union address on January 31, I would like to make some predictions on what the President will propose. First, as a moral leader, I believe that President Bush’s heart is truly compassionate and he is sincere in his intentions. He is led by principles and not by polls. You have to admire a man who believes what he says and acts accordingly. Be it the rebuilding in Iraq or fighting the “War on Terrorism,” he is determined to, in his words, “say the course.” When the President speaks, I have a tendency to believe what he says and that he means it. With that being said, here are a few guesses on the 2006 State of the Union:

1. The President will take this opportunity to talk about many of the successes in Iraq, unfortunately, as has been typical, he will use the same tired quips that he has used since the beginning of the War. Although I believe the War was just, the President and his administration has done a poor job of maintaining support when the going got tough. This is not because the campaign is not going well, but it is being shed in a bad light in the media and not well defended by the President. I don’t see that this will change.
2. I think the President will hint at the growing treat in Iran. I believe he will shy away from using the term “evil” but will defer this one to the UN.
3. More spending. The State of the Union, and this is not just President GW Bush, but all presidents, have used this public address to proposal new spending. From the looks of early reports, we will see a great increase in the spending on Health Care. It scares me that the Democrats may get their socialized Canadian-style health care through the back door. Since when has the problem been solved by throwing more money into a government program. Privatize all health care if you want results.
4. Liberia. I am going on a limb with this one. Something will be said about this African country and the turning around of the corrupt government with the election of a new (female Ivy-league economics educated) President. I can’t recall her name, but from what I have read, she understands what freedom from government is all about.
5. More spending on “relief” for AIDS in Africa. This boat didn’t float before, but this is something the President believes in.
6. A call to make the tax cuts permanent.
7. A call to renew the Patriot Act.
8. Nothing will be said on the supposed “ease-dropping” by the government. Rightly so.

In the Democrats rebuttal, which begs the question why they even get this time, they will:
1. Complain and criticize
2. Offer no solutions

That one is easy.

I hope everyone takes the time and interest to watch the State of the Union. I know that it is not Desperate Housewives or CSI (my favorite) but it is vital to your participation as a citizen.

Let’s remember to keep our elected officials accountable to the principles that got them elected.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Pope's First Encyclical On The Way

Pope Benedict: encyclical to be released Jan 25, to deal with true meaning of love

Vatican City, Jan. 18, 2006 (CNA) - During his general audience held today at the Vatican, Pope Benedict announced that his long waited, first Encyclical, on the theme of love, will be released on January 25th.

The title of the document is "Deus Caritas Est," which means, “God is love,” a theme taken from the first letter of St. John. It will be made public during an official presentation in the Holy See Press Office at noon.

The Pope explained the document’s contents saying that "love today often appears as something far removed from Church teaching." Yet "It is a single movement that has various dimensions."

"Charity," he continued, "is the love that renounces itself in favor of others. 'Eros' becomes 'agape' if one seeks the good of others; it becomes 'caritas' if it opens to one's own family and to the entire human family."

The Holy Father added that this first Encyclical "seeks to show that the very personal act of love must be expressed within the Church also as an organizational act. If it is true that the Church is an expression of God, it must be true that love becomes an ecclesial act."

He called it “a sign of Providence that the Encyclical will be published on January 25, the final day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, when I will go to the basilica of St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls, to pray together with our Protestant and Orthodox brethren."

read full story here

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Rabbi Calls "Hitler's Pope" A Righteous Man

Rabbi Says Pius XII Deserves "Righteous" Title
David Dalin Makes Case in "Myth of Hitler's Pope"

ROME, JAN. 17, 2006 ( A U.S. rabbi says that the title "Righteous among the Nations" should be conferred on Pope Pius XII for his efforts to defend the Jews during World War II.

Rabbi David Dalin, a professor of history and political science at Ave Maria University in Florida, makes his case in his book "The Myth of Hitler's Pope," published by Regnery.

The work shows that, in the course of history, many popes defended and protected the Jews from accusations and persecutions. It also recounts many incidents which show how Pius XII saved Jews from Nazi persecution.

Rabbi Dalin quotes authoritative studies by Jewish authors, such as Pinchas Lapide's "Rome and the Jews" and "Pius XII and the Jews," written in 1963 by Joseph Lichten, a member of the Anti-Defamation League.

The rabbi also quotes Hungarian historian Jeno Levai who, in the face of accusations of silence against Pius XII, wrote "Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pope Pius XII Did Not Remain Silent. Reports, Documents and Records from Church and State Archives," published in English in 1968. Robert M.W. Kempner, the deputy U.S. counsel during the Nuremberg trials, wrote the introduction to that book...

read full story here

As I pointed out in a recent editorial below, we are living in a time of historical revisionism. For years people have been taught to believe that Pope Pius XII assisted Hitler (through silence) in the Holocaust. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the historical records tell the story in full. Pope Pius XII actually worked to save the Jewish people from the Holocaust. Those who have been led to believe otherwise are victims of propaganda, which has been spread to defame the Catholic Church, and divert some blame for the Holocaust away from Hitler and Nazi Germany. The propaganda against Pope Pius XII is specifically designed to make the papacy look bad, and Hitler look not so bad. When Jews subscribe to it, it victimizes them twice, because not only does it shift blame away from the regime that tried to destroy them, but it also causes them to think badly of one of the men who tried to help them. It's time the truth be told, and I applaud Rabbi Dalin for taking up the cause. Pope Pius XII will be canonized as a Saint one day, and when he is, the primary reason for his canonization will be the aid and comfort he gave to nearly 1 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Save The Earth -- Kill A Plant

New source of global warming gas found: plants

German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.

"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.

read full story here

Okay, you've got to admit this is funny. All these years the ecofascists (a.k.a. "environmentalists") have been predicting the dire consequences of alleged "man-made global warming." For nearly four decades, ecofascists have had a choke hold on American politics and the American economy. They are the primary reason why the United States is dependent on foreign oil. They've made it impossible to drill for oil off many American coastlines, and they've bogged down American oil refineries with so much regulation that most corporations find it cheaper to just import refined oil from other countries -- like the middle east. Of course, this raps up American interests in places like the middle east, which tends to get us involved in middle-eastern wars, and gives Arab governments a frightening influence over Washington DC. The ecofascist hysteria has even reached the level of international politics via the infamous Kyoto Protocol Treaty, which calls for the drastic reduction of man-made greenhouse gases and the stifling of global economies.

Nevermind the fact that a single volcano in the Philippines (Mt. Pinatubo, erupted June 15, 1991) spewed more greenhouse gases in one week than all man-made emissions during the entire 20th century. Yet one more example why rising global temperatures have little to nothing to do with mankind. But who cares about real science -- right?

We've got a planet to save, and worldwide socialism to enact, so we need a crisis. Enter the man-made global warming myth. Nations have succumbed to it, and world leaders bow down to it. It's the stuff of science fiction. Hell, it is science fiction! But who cares, it serves its purpose. Ecofascism (a.k.a. environmentalism) is just a guise for setting up a global socialist economy, with the UN serving as a world governmental agency acting on behalf of Mother Earth (the environment). Everybody knows the greens are really red, and nobody seems to care. If we can just make enough Hollywood movies forecasting the end of the world, we just might be able to scare enough American capitalists into going along with it. Who cares if any of it is true. The ends justify the means you see. The end is a worldwide socialist economy and the means is... well, any means necessary.

So in the spirit of helping the ecofascists "save the world" I would like to propose the following. A recent study has determined that living plants play a major role (up to 30%) in the emissions of global-warming greenhouse gases. In fact, the same scientific study proved that dead plants emit far less emissions than living plants. So in the name of all ecofascist insanity I propose we give those environmentalists exactly what they've been asking for. Save the world -- kill a plant! That's right! Kill a plant. Kill as many as you can to cut down on the emissions of deadly greenhouse gases that cause global warming. It's the only reasonable solution. Western economies won't be weaned off the oil market for decades. That could take too long. So it's up to everyone to do their part. If you love Mother Earth, it's your ecologic duty as a citizen of this planet to commit as much herbicide as possible. So go outside, find a nice big shrub, hold on real tight and give it a pull. Then be sure to chop it up and put it in the trash bin so it doesn't plant it's deadly global-warming roots someplace else. If it bothers you, close your eyes and do it anyway, because it might be the only thing that saves us. Then go tell your nearest ecofascist neighbor to stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

'Alternate Histories' On The Rise

Invasion of ‘Da Vinci’ book clones challenges church history, teaching

MALAGA, Spain (National Catholic Register) -- Some Catholics may be bracing for a new onslaught of confusion about Christ, his teachings and his church when "The Da Vinci Code" movie opens May 19. But few may be aware of a challenge on another front: a growing genre of books that takes church history and gives it a fictional twist under the auspices of entertainment and enlightenment....

read full story here

What people are failing to understand is that a massive misinformation campaign is underway. It's sole purpose is to discredit Christianity entirely, and ultimately bring down the Catholic Church. The message of books like "The Di Vinci Code," and similar works, is simple. Christianity is a farce. It's an entire religion devised to cover up a conspiracy, and of course, everybody loves conspiracies.

"The Di Vinci Code" novel is fiction of course. The author even admits that in the preface of his book. It's also chalk full of historical inaccuracies. The basic gist of the novel is that Jesus Christ was nothing more than a popular Jewish rabbi who made no claims of divinity, was married to Mary Magdalene (who was later picked to lead the church), and had a daughter who grew up in hiding in France. The reason no one knows about this is, of course, the "evil" Catholic Church covered it all up. It did it by painting Mary Magdalene out to be a common whore, and then adopted pagan teachings and twisted Jesus into a divine figure of worship. The premise asserts that the Knights Templar kept some records in secret codes and symbols (such as the "Holy Grail" which is really Mary's womb). In recent times these secrets passed to Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and of course, Leonardo Di Vinci. By looking through their works - especially Di Vinci's Last Supper and Mona Lisa - the "code" can be deciphered and the "truth" revealed.

With the recent success of the "Di Vinci Code" a plethora of knock-off novels are hitting the bookshelves. In the process, something is happening. Slowly and quietly, history is being rewritten. An entire "alternate history" is being manufactured for people who want to believe it, or who just happen to be ignorant enough to not know any better. In time an entire generation will subscribe to the "Di Vinci Code" alternate history, and in the process, more will turn away from Christianity. That, of course, is the objective.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

47 U.S.C. 223

Something happened last Thursday that is bound to be thrown out in the courts. President Bush signed into law a prohibition to be anonymous in Internet communication. The law is intended to prosecute those who “…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Although it supposedly does not apply to interactive Internet communication, such as blogs and chat, I would not be so sure if it remains in that context. So for all those bloggers out there that want to tear apart an argument incognito, if this law sticks, be wary of any slippery slope that may occur. The Cato Institute brings-up a great point about the abridging the freedom of speech. Although I am not normally one to cry foul and whine that my rights are being violated, Cato pointed to the fact that many of those who we now consider patriots during revolutionary times, pamphlets distributed in the cause of liberty were signed anonymously and with pseudonyms. Were these people annoying to the British? I think the Brits may have even called their behavior harassment.

Why is this important to us as Catholics? The freedom of speech, the right to gather together, the freedom from government intervention in religion, are all connected at the hip. With a constraint on speech goes the right to whom we are allowed to speak. With the abridgement of the right to assembly and speech, those are the cornerstones of the public practice of our Faith. The right to be unknown gives a voice to the most timid among us that may just be stepping out onto the stage of debate. The free exchange of ideas, for the proud and the weak, should not be regulated in any way by government law, but by the free-market of ideas. This is perhaps the most feasible way to have justice in speech.

I close with a passage from the New Catholic Dictionary, by no means authoritative, but perhaps with insight:

“Both Church and State have a right to censor the speech and the writings of their subjects. This right, however, should be exercised with great care. Censorship may lead to spreading information in ways doing more harm than would the open discussion of such facts; and the suppression of open discussion may lead to underground discontent resulting in ultimate revolt. Particularly in the political field, where there is usually room for difference of opinion, freedom of speech and of the press is likely to act as a safety valve, and be the lesser of two evils. Progress frequently comes from the clash of opinions. Governments, civil and ecclesiastical, may wisely adopt something of God's tolerance.”

Lets be careful and watch this one.

New Catholic Dictionary

(Afterthought: I would also contend that if a Democratic controlled Congress or a Democrat president had done this, Republicans and the like would be hopping mad. We need to be vigilant not to just let the power corrupt absolutely as we cheer our candidate. I still believe in the President, but I cannot approve of this action.)

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Democrats Smear Alito, Driving His Wife to Tears

Wed Jan 11 2006 17:22:11 ET

Judge Samuel A. Alito’s wife Martha left the confirmation hearing room in tears this evening, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologized to the Judge’s family for the behavior of his fellow committee members during the course of the last three days.

Sen. Graham said: “Judge Alito, I am sorry that you’ve had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.”

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have attacked Judge Samuel A. Alito over his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his involvement in the Vanguard case.

One senior Republican in the hearing room said of the situation: “After three full days of attacks against her husband’s character, Mrs. Alito had enough. Democrat behavior during this hearing has not only been wrong, it’s been embarrassing. Ted Kennedy is nothing but a bully.”

read full story here

The drama continues!

As I've stated in the stories below, the Democrats have fulfilled my predictions like prophecy. (But I'm no prophet.) Rather, the liberal Democrats in the Senate have just become THAT predictable. Everything is unfolding EXACTLY as the Democrats have planned. This was part of the Democratic "Smear Alito" playbook leaked to the press just before the hearings got underway. (read more about that here) The only thing that isn't working according to plan is the American people's response. Most Americans are aghast at the Democratic Senators' behavior, and embarrassed Republicans on the committee are already apologizing for it.

Let's just do a recap of what's really going on here. President Bush nominated Appellate Court Judge Sam Alito to fill the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. There's only two problems with that. The liberals don't like President Bush to begin with, and Judge Alito just happens to be (gasp!) a practicing Catholic. There's a problem with practicing Catholics you see. They're generally conservative! Of course it should be no surprise that President Bush would nominate a conservative to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Democratic Senators do have a history of bullying Republican Presidents into nominating "moderate liberals" who look moderately conservative at first glance (i.e. former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and current Justice David Souter). Nevertheless, President Bush chose to nominate a Judge that looks somewhat conservative (the nerve!) and also happens to be another practicing Catholic. "Good God!" the liberals must have shouted. "Didn't he just do that a few months back with Chief Justice John Roberts!?!" When Roberts was nominated, liberal pundits ranted and raved about his religion until it came back to smack them in the face as rank bigotry. Since the Roberts backfire, liberals have learned how to bite their tongue, but their true feelings do slip out from time to time. Eleanor Smeal, president of the 'Feminist Majority' reportedly warned that if Alito becomes a Supreme Court Justice, “the majority of the court would be Roman Catholic, which would under represent other religions, not to mention nonbelievers.” Of course, Ms. Smeal has no problem when Jews are "over represented" on the Court by 22% (compared to less than 2% of the U.S. population), nor did she have a problem when Catholics were "under represented" on the Court just two decades ago. Even a modest level of research reveals that some 32% of Supreme Court Justices throughout history have been Episcopalian, and yet only 2% of the U.S. population is affiliated with that denomination. About 18% of the Justices have been Presbyterian, when only 3% of the U.S. population identifies with that denomination. I see no cries of injustice from Ms. Smeal there. But you see this has nothing to do with demographic representation, and the U.S. Supreme Court is not supposed to be an exact cross-section of America. She knows that. We all know what Ms. Smeal really meant when she warned that the majority of the Court would be Roman Catholic, and it had nothing to do with proportional representation. It had to do with the fact that Roman Catholicism is a staunchly conservative religion, especially when it comes to the sanctity of human life. If Judge Alito had a reputation of disparaging his religion, like Senator Ted Kennedy does, people like Ms. Smeal wouldn't have so much of a problem with him. But Judge Alito, like Chief Justice Roberts, actually practices Catholicism and believes what his Church teaches. According to the implication of Ms. Smeal anyway, that makes him dangerous! But Ms. Smeal is not alone. Her opinion reflects that of the majority of liberals today, especially those who control the national Democratic Party. They hold all religious conservatives in contempt, (just ask DNC Chairman Howard Dean), but especially conservative Catholics.

Having learned their lesson from the anti-Catholic backfire in the John Roberts hearings, liberals have been biting their tongues, and looking for anything they can find to smear Alito in anything that doesn't involve his religion. Unable to dig up any dirt on the nominee, they're using the old "guilt by association" routine, trying to paint him as a racist, because of some racist comments, somebody else wrote, who Judge Alito never knew. The only connection is that both men happened to be "members" of the same conservative college organization at Princeton. A big fight broke out over that one, between Republican Senator Spector and Democratic Senator Kennedy, when Kennedy threatened to hijack the committee hearings if Senator Spector (the chairman) didn't give him what he wanted. (If the two were sitting any closer it may have gone to blows.)

On the chance that the whole Princeton smear doesn't work, (and it probably won't), Democratic Senators on the committee have concocted a backup plan to smear Judge Alito as dishonest and abusive of the legal system. This plan involves painting Alito as a judge who rules in ways to line his own pockets with cash. Their "evidence" for this is even sketchier than what they have on the Princeton smear.

Meanwhile the sparks continue to fly in the committee hearings, mostly between Senators, as Judge Alito smiles and answers the questions clearly, articulately and with judicial pragmatism. His wife however, unaccustomed to hearing her husband's name smeared and besmirched, left the room in tears today, and who can blame her. Suppose you sat and watched as somebody you love, and know to be a good man, endured nine hours of pure slander and condescension. It's a testimony of her love for him.

The liberal Democratic Senators in the committee are really between a rock and a hard place, and this explains their behavior. Their biggest reelection campaign financiers (beltway liberals) don't want Judge Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mainly because they're anti-Catholic, and they fear too many Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court might actually do the right thing when it comes to ruling on issues like abortion, euthanasia, property rights and religious freedom. Those Senators are under tremendous pressure to destroy this man any way they can. But they can't say what their financiers really want them to say, because it smacks of anti-Catholic bigotry. So they've got to come up with another way to destroy him. The only problem is that Alito is squeaky clean. He comes with the highest recommendation from the American Bar Association, and the only witnesses willing to testify against him have been abandoned because of their obvious partisan connections. So these Democratic Senators have nothing left to do but patronize and treat him like a criminal, so as to at least appease the liberal financiers pulling their strings. Ah! The Party of the "little guy" hard at work.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Frustrated liberals confounded by honest and polite Alito.

Poll: Majority of Americans Support Alito

Americans support the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court by a 2 to 1 margin.

According to the latest Washington Post–ABC News poll, 53 percent of Americans say Alito should be confirmed by the Senate. Only 27 percent say he should be rejected. Twenty percent remains undecided.

The poll reveals self-identified Democrats are not energized in opposition to the nomination...

read full story here

And so the three-ring circus of the Senate confirmation hearings kicks off with a bang. Democrats are attacking, Republicans are defending, while Judge Samuel Alito smiles as he watches the show. In fact, it would seem that the most sane person in the room is none other than the judge himself -- the man these hearings are supposed to be about. But let's make no mistake about it here. These hearings have very little to do with Judge Alito, and they have everything to do with partisan politics. It's all about posturing, because the Senate already knows how it's going to vote. We can expect about 60 senators (mostly Republican) to vote to confirm Judge Alito, regardless of the results of these hearings. About 20 senators (exclusively Democrat) will vote against his confirmation, regardless of the results of these hearings. Only about 10 senators are "undecided," but word has it that most of them will vote to confirm baring any bombshell revelations dropped at the hearings. So basically, it looks like Judge Alito is in. (Though I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch.) It isn't over until the swearing in ceremony, and I don't think we should breath a sigh of relief until President Bush administers the oath of office to "Justice Alito." If we've learned anything about the Democrats' tactics, it's that they'll sink to any level to try to derail this confirmation.

Sunday, January 8, 2006

Supreme Knight Asks Senate to Reject Prejudice

In a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson warns that some "abortion rights partisans who oppose the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion" are opposing the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court because he is a Roman Catholic. The letter asks the senators to "disavow any effort to decide Judge Alito's nomination on the basis of his faith, or the degree to which he is presumed to be a faithful Catholic."

Read the Supreme Knight's letter

The fact that Judge Alito would become the fifth Catholic on the nine-member court has been the subject of several news stories over the past week, and prompted one abortion rights advocate to oppose his confirmation on grounds that it "would underrepresent other religions, not to mention unbelievers."

Anderson notes that "nearly everyone correctly regards [Alito's confirmation] as signifying nothing more than that five extremely capable and accomplished attorneys who happen to be Catholic have been chosen to serve on our highest court."

But Anderson takes sharp issue with the anti-Catholic prejudice still to be found today among abortion rights activists. "The notion that Judge Alito should be considered unfit for membership on the Supreme Court simply because he is a Catholic (or because he is one Catholic too many) is profoundly in conflict with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution," he wrote.


More "Book of Daniel"

Imagine a television program that contains sexual situations, drug content, ethnic stereotypes, a permissive view of homosexuality and scattered crude language and humor. All this wrapped in a the premise of a scandalous religious facade. In the United States we have repealed our sense of justice to a degree that victimizes the vast majority. As the networks continue to air shows that degrade the viewing public for the supposed witty writing of a vast minority, they act against the ideals of justice. Now, does NBC have the right to air such programs as "The Book of Daniel." Yes, they have the right to put up whatever trash they chose to air, but as I have pointed out in this blog before, NBC has shown that it is not capable of airing programming that people will watch. As they appeal to the lowest denominators, they are only hurting themselves. So I say that NBC should show 24-hours a day "Book of Daniel" type programming, lose all viewers and therefore all advertising dollars. Not that anyone would know.

By the way, the show that I asked you to imagine at the start of this blog is exactly how the USSCB (United State Conference of Catholic Bishop) described the offensive content of this show.

So if you feel, as a private citizen, that this show is too much for you, then I urge you to write to your local NBC affiliate and let them know. This is your right and it can easily be exercised.

Pope Attacks "Culture of Death"

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict performed the first baptisms of his pontificate on Sunday, using the occasion to launch an impassioned denunciation of irresponsible sex and a "culture of death" that he said pervaded the modern world.

Pope Benedict, abandoning his prepared sermon, compared the wild excesses of the ancient Roman empire to 21st century society and urged people to rediscover their faith...

read full story here

Meanwhile, American Liberals respond by trying smear a Catholic nominee to the Supreme Court, while the Muslim world responds by releasing the man from prison who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Yes, the Holy Father is right, the whole world is immersed in a 'culture of death' which in many ways rivals even that of the ancient Romans. All Christians must unite on this, or the forces of this world will unite against us. It's sort of like what Benjamin Franklin said at the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. "Gentlemen, we had better all hang together, or else we'll all hang separately."

Saturday, January 7, 2006

Vatican’s shift on Iraq

Terrorism evident in recent papal statements

WASHINGTON (Our Sunday Visitor) -- Recent statements by Pope Benedict XVI reflect a notable shift in emphasis in the Vatican's approach to Iraq and the war on terror. Instead of assailing U.S. policy in Iraq, as he and the Holy See did three years ago, Pope Benedict now is stressing the evil of terrorism and the need to deal with it...

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: As I've said for a while, it no longer matters what our views were before the Iraq War. What's done is done. Now it's time to unite behind our leaders to stop terrorism in Iraq and around the world. Attacking our leaders on their foreign policy now will only give fuel to our terrorist enemies.

Friday, January 6, 2006

Is Western Civilization Finished?

It's the Demography, Stupid
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands--probably--just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society--government health care, government day care (which Canada's thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain's just introduced). We've prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity--"Go forth and multiply," because if you don't you won't be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don't understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don't think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam...

read full story here

In short it all comes down to this. We really don't need to worry about Islamic terrorists, because we're killing ourselves with rampant liberalism. In the end, liberalism is nihilist -- a philosophy of self-extinction. Western countries are shrinking in relative population to non-western countries, and we've sold our souls to the 'cult of the omnipotent state.' Our governments are more concerned with keeping us happy with social programs than they are with providing for our common defense and protecting our boarders. Besides, all of that is secondary to the fact that westerners just aren't having enough children anymore. In time (within a century) the third-world will be THE World, and most of that world will be Islamic. The solution is relatively simple, but nothing short of a miracle will make it happen...
  1. We need a massive revival of Christianity in Europe and North America.
  2. We need to start making babies -- lots of them.
  3. We need to depend on ourselves, our families and our churches for our needs -- NOT the government.
If western civilization embraces these three goals, we will survive the 21st century. If we don't, then it's over. Within a generation, the world as we know it, will simply cease to exist. No, it's not a prophecy of doom. No, it's not a prediction of major cataclysmic events. It's just a forecast of simple demographic trends.

Democrats Plan to SMEAR Alito

Matt Drudge is reporting that the Democrats are planning an all-out smear campaign against Catholic nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court -- Judge Samuel Alito.

Senate Democrats have put into place a plan that includes one last push to take down the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito as he heads into his confirmation hearing next week, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Senate Democrats intend to zero in on Alito’s alleged enthusiastic membership to an organization, they will charge, that was sexist and racist!

read full story here

What did I tell you!?! They'll stop at nothing, but they WILL NEVER admit the truth. The Democrats don't want Alito on the Supreme Court because he's a Catholic and he may rule against abortion. So they'll resort to petty smear campaigns using a "guilt by association" tactic. We saw what they did to Justice Clarence Thomas during his nomination hearing. I have a feeling that whole fiasco will be nothing but a footnote compared to what the Democrats have in store for Alito. If the Republicans are smart (which I highly doubt these days), they'll call for a vote immediately after the hearings are over, so the Democratic (stealthy anti-catholic) smear campaign against Alito doesn't have time to gain traction in the media. Let's see if these Republicans in the Senate have learned anything over the last six years. Somehow, I don't think so. I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed.

Thursday, January 5, 2006

Pope Named "Anti-Gay Person of the Year"

I hope he wears this one like a badge of honor. I would. You can tell a lot about a person by the enemies he makes. In this case, the Washington Blade, America's most pro-homosexual, anti-family propaganda rag has chosen our beloved pope as their 'public enemy #1.' You know this pope has got to be a really great one if the liberal relativists at the Washington Blade hate him so. I say three cheers for Pope Benedict XVI, protector of the family and guardian of the true Christian faith.

Pope Benedict XVI Named 2005 "Anti-Gay Person of the Year"
By Gudrun Schultz

WASHINGTON, DC, United States, January 4, 2006 ( - Pope Benedict XVI has been labeled the most anti-gay person of 2005 by the Washington Blade, one of the most prominent homosexual newspapers in the United States.

The paper bypassed the few groups which promote hatred of persons with homosexual tendencies to target the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, stating he has "unilaterally targeted gays as moral threats to society," and "aggressively lobbied against gay rights across the globe."

By ignoring perpetrators of violence and aggression against homosexuals and instead targeting the Holy Father, homosexual activism reveals it is not simply seeking freedom from persecution and violence. The goal of the movement is to force worldwide acceptance and support of the gay lifestyle...

read full story here

Wednesday, January 4, 2006

Anti-Catholicism Fueling Supreme Court Fight

As the fight for the U.S. Supreme Court gets heated up, anti-Catholic sentiments are being cemented within the liberal establishment. Already major media networks have launched a full scale assault on Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. The intent is to incite anti-Catholic sentiments in public opinion, in the hope of bolstering the leftist campaign against Judge Sam Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many opinion writers have already pointed out that if Judge Sam Alito is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority of justices will be Catholic. The mere suggestion of such a possibility sends shivers down the spines of liberal relativists who worship at the alter of Roe v. Wade. Indeed, politics makes strange bedfellows when U.S. liberals find themselves in the same camp as American racists and klansmen, who equally would prefer not to see another Catholic on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ironic, isn't it?

US pro-life leader sees anti-Catholic strategy in Supreme Court fight

Washington, Jan. 04 ( - An American pro-life leader has charged that liberal politicians are engaging in "Catholic-bashing" in their opposition to Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Father Thomas Euteneuer, the president of Human Life International, denounced "the unrelenting campaign waged by many Senate Democrats, some of whom claim to be Catholics themselves, against Catholic judicial nominees."

Father Euteneuer charged that groups such as People for the American Way,, and the Alliance for Justice have adopted a strategy of attacking the Catholic faith as a means of rousing opposition to the Supreme Court appointment...

read full story here

Bar Gives "thumbs up" to Samuel Alito

Judge Samuel Alito has received a unanimous "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. The organization most qualified to determine his qualification has given him a unanimous thumbs-up. It's official! there is no question whatsoever on the qualifications of Judge Samuel Alito. So it will be interesting to see which liberal politicians and media propagandists question his qualifications in the days ahead. We should take special note of those who do. Since there is no question on his qualifications, we can only ask what these politicians and propagandists are trying to hide. Questioning Alito's qualifications will be used as a smokescreen -- plain and simple. It will be used to mask the REAL reason why these people don't like him. Maybe it's because he's conservative. Maybe it's because he's relatively pro-life. Maybe it's because he's Catholic, and they don't want the Supreme Court to be dominated by Catholics. We may never know why these people dislike Alito, because they will probably never tell us. Instead they'll throw out the smokescreen of questioning his qualifications, when the American Bar Association has already stated there is no question of his qualifications.

Alito Gets High Marks From Bar Association

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received an unanimous well- qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

The rating came after a vote of the ABA federal judiciary committee and was delivered in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will launch Alito's confirmation hearings on Monday. Alito will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

"As a result of our investigation, the committee is of the unanimous opinion that Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is well-qualified for appointment as associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," said Stephen L. Tober, chairman of the ABA panel.

The ABA rating _ the highest _ is the same that Alito received back in when President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, nominated him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals...

read full story here