INTRODUCTION AND PREMISES FOR DISCUSSION

This month we continue with our analysis of FOX News, the network making the claim that their reports are "fair and balanced," so that "you decide." Is this claim fair and balanced in of itself and do we really get to decide? IS TRUTH UP FOR GRABS WITH THE ONLY LEGITIMACY INHERENT WITH INDIVIDUALS, WHATEVER WAY THE DECISION GOES, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY "DECIDED"?

The issue most critical, standing at the cross roads of societal change is homosexuality, its degenerate practices, ideology, and enforced "acceptability." One might say that abortion and the pro-death mentality are our worst social-political and moral ills, and they are, but they have been largely institutionalized, even "main-streamed," so to speak, and until we convert this nation to Catholicism or to the morality of the natural law and the Ten Commandments, those cross roads have already been traversed. Our leaders and rulers are not disposed to take us out of this wasteland and we are even less inclined to insist that they do as we long ago forfeited our right to self-rule, preferring coddled governmental "security" to personal responsibility, at least where innocent human life is concerned. We do not see the developing child flailing and hear the baby screaming in the womb, so practically speaking, that is, psychologically and politically, he or she does not exist any longer, just as when the 2-hour born baby, who can be saved, is left to die on a cold metal table in a hospital room, the barbarity is no longer seen by us as prosecutable homicide or infanticide.

Although the homosexual agenda has made great strides in perverting our culture, our Church, and even our family life to some extent, there is still a point at which we are able to make a stand against it and have that stand be effective, as weakened as we are by our silence on abortion. In any culture war there are two battlefields or wars, the war of words, fought in the media, and the practical mobilization efforts of the enemy and our resistance to them, the day to day considerations that effect us apart from the media spin. The purpose of this column is to examine the media as it influences our ability to make decisions and affect public policy. 

For the moment we are staying with our analysis of FOX because the network promotes itself as "balanced," so relentlessly. And nowhere is it more telling about such a claim of "balance" as on the issue of homosexuality. But first, although we have already touched on the matter of what constitutes the demands of "balance" or equity in relation to truth, it is important that we recall to ourselves once more a summary of the nature of truth and what is owed to it, morally and ethically, and what is not owed to untruth, morally and ethically: We will accomplish this through analogy, in preparation for our report on FOX in the context of these analogies. This will constitute several paragraphs as we need to be thorough.

First, truth is by definition intolerant, that is to say, truth excludes untruth, whether by lies, or disinformation. Truth and untruth are by nature and by definition intolerant and mutually exclusive of one another. A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. And because truth is a good and untruth an evil thing as it opposes that which is inherently and necessarily good, they cannot be in any way to be said to be of equal value or have an equal claim to legitimacy, no more than theft or murder are held to be morally equivalent to respect for human life and private property, slavery the equivalent of human rights and dignity.

If I say that I am a Catholic, I also mean to say that I am not a member of another creed or the creed of "atheism." I exclude by definition, not only include. To say that I am Catholic presupposes that I cannot be tolerant of anti-Catholicism, because my religious beliefs are not a matter of what vegetable to choose for dinner, but are the most important attribute of my being. I may privately and publicly be kind to others as individual persons who are not Catholics, in fact, I am morally obligated to do so, but this does not negate my right, and obligation, to be opposed politically and philosophically to all that opposes the Church and the rights of Jesus Christ, Sovereign King. "Tolerance" does not obligate me to be silent in the face of evil, even if I do not have a probable expectation to be believed and or respected in every case. If I had to ruminate on that possibility of outcome every time, I would probably surrender to the cowardly comfort of silence. But if I do not oppose evil, then I promote it by a false toleration even if only by lazy default. And that which opposes God's saving truth is by definition my enemy as being that which belongs to evil. In a particular situation I may be morally within my rights by the virtue of prudence to choose to be silent at that moment, but I am not obligated to do so as a general rule. But what is prudent for you may be imprudent for me, depending on each of our personal obligations [as understood by the Church] and abilities. Since this is a private matter the state has no right here and thus there is no one size fits all rule imposed on us as individuals.

And while we are on the subject of tolerance, let us be sure that we understand what is meant by "tolerance" as traditionally understood by the Church and society in general, not the sham that is being purported by the elites at the switching points of cultural change in the media: 

Tolerance is that reality of societal life that recognizes that there are sins that cannot be politically or legally acted against as a way of control, without a greater evil ensuing than the one intended to be prevented. For instance, telling a lie to a neighbor, as a private person, is a sin, might even be a mortal sin in some circumstances, but it is inherently impossible for any government, no matter how tyrannical with a police force, to prosecute every case of private lying. Lying is evil and forbidden by God, period, even for a so-called "good reason," and thus, it can be rightfully asserted that private lies, because they are evil, harm not only the individuals involved, but society as well, for demoralized individuals are a part of that society, and lying demoralizes others. But the Church permits, and society has always understood that private lying [as opposed to slander, libel and perjury] is an area where we agree to "tolerate" it passively, that is, without imposing public sanctions, for a greater good, given the nature of the necessary restrictions of the police force in any given community and the nature of human congress.

Although we agree that we cannot and must not impose legal sanctions against those who privately lie to others, we also understand, both within the Church and within society, that this necessary tolerance, does not constitute a legal or moral "right" to lie. There is no right to lie and no one is morally free to make that claim as a defense for perjury in the public sphere, or for telling a "fib" in the private one, let us say. Thus, a necessary tolerance does not convert to a claim of a right as morally and legally understood.

We even understand that society, by necessity, must be intolerant of lying: in the private incidences, it agrees not to legislate while disapproving, for the reasons cited above, and in the public incidences, it seeks to prosecute where it can be ascertained that a case exists. In both situations it is intolerant of lying because lying is not only a private sin or evil, it is harmful to the social good in general. Now, does anyone raise the specter of "intolerance" in this regard? Of course not, because reasonable people who have some moral standards left intact are still able to recognize that there is no right to lie, and mainly because there is no National Task Force for the Promotion of Lying, under the guise of a "Human Rights" campaign, spreading its propaganda in the media without effective challenge. Now we also understand that there is such a thing as not necessarily being impelled to tell all the truth in some limited situations, as long as we do not tell a lie. 

For instance I am not morally obligated to tell you that you have a big, ugly nose, not only because it would hurt your feelings, but it it would serve no good to anyone who has a right to a particular good. I sin if I tell you that your nose is small and cute, because I know that is not the case, because our culture has set a standard for what makes for general attractiveness, even given the range of differences within that standard, and I mostly patronize you, which is unworthy of both of us. And I sin if I tell you the truth, suspecting with reason, that you may be asking for validation, not the actual truth and thus end up hurting you. I can validate your human worth without telling all the truth as known and believed by me.

At some point we all agree that some noses are large and rather unattractive, even if we might disagree until we reach that point of agreement. Right or wrong, we have internalized that human standard and we all know what that is. I do not want to lie to you, you have no moral claim on me that would require me to impart any secret thoughts I may have, so I merely discuss anything but the size of your nose. This is perfectly natural, normal in that it is the usual case, and very moral. No one claims that I have a moral obligation to tell you about your nose, something you probably already know about anyway. [Obviously I am using a subject that is not politically controversial as an example, for the sake of simplicity.] 

We also agree and understand, morally, and socially, that if you ask me what I think about your nose, that I am morally within my rights to use what is termed "a natural or mental reservation," that is, I may speak of your nose in such a way that I do not insult you, without actually telling a lie; for instance, I could respond by telling you that you have an interesting profile, which is true, and which is not a lie in the sense that I have not said how wonderful your cauliflower-sized nose is. This is not disinformation because I have told the truth, just not all of it, to a private person who is not entitled to all of the truth from me as a private citizen unless I know or am reasonably certain that he or she is truly after the plain truth. I am permitted a sphere of natural privacy regarding personal thoughts of my neighbor and in many cases obligated by decency to remain silent. Justice has not been violated. 

Now, if I am a plastic surgeon, a nasal expert in the medical field or in some related profession and you ask the same question, my responsibility to you is changed inherently by virtue of the context. In this case you are entitled to the truth and are not committing a social faux pas by asking the question about your nose. Now, please note, in both contexts, a lie is not permitted, but the amount of truth that is owed does change. As a surgeon, if I tell you that you have an interesting profile, no matter how true that is, and only that, I have not lied in the technical sense, but I have misinformed you because you are asking me as a professional and are entitled to your answer. I may have to inform you that your nose is indeed large and is that big because you have a tumor growing. How I phrase the word tumor or the possibility of cancer may depend on how I perceive your willingness to accept medical help, but I cannot pretend the tumor is not there and discuss only golf scores. Or if the question is directed to me as a plastic surgeon and I sense you want to know if your nose can be altered within the boundaries of acceptable good medicine, I owe you a thorough answer. An eye surgeon once refrained from informing me that I had cataracts, because he did not think it important. His lie by virtue of deliberate omission was very harmful as I did not seek treatment I needed until two years after the undisclosed diagnosis. Because of his general incompetence while undertaking a routine examination I discharged him as my eye doctor and did not learn of my actual condition until later. While I chose to not pursue the matter legally, I would have been morally within my rights to do so if I had decided otherwise.

So let's recap briefly in our philosophical prelude for standard setting: Good and evil are not moral equivalents and do not possess equal rights; a lie is always wrong or evil, even what are called "polite social lies," although we agree to tolerate them, while we agree not to tolerate public lies where the right to the truth is a necessity for the public good. We also agree that the context of the right to the truth changes the amount of the truth told, not the moral and or social necessity of telling the truth, to those entitled to it by justice, period. In other words, lies, disinformation [deliberately falsified reporting] or misinformation [untruths not deliberately disseminated as lies] are evils, that is, opposed to truth, and must not be tolerated by way of according a sanctioned "right" to lie. Of course someone who tells the untruth without prior knowledge of same, is guilty of innocent misinformation, and we do not label him a liar. But we do not excuse the untruth just because the person made a mistake. We forgive him, not the lie in other form. We guard the truth zealously as a pearl of great price and brook no man to violate her, without just compensation, usually the simple admittance of an innocent error suffices as the truth is restored.

We are, in effect, not morally obligated to provide "equal time" for lies, privately or publicly; what is different in the two cases cited above is the amount of truth obligated to be imparted and the enforcement mechanisms for that obligation. In the one, the private parties generally undertake this on an informal personal basis of private restitution where required, and in the other we have a legal code that forbids perjury, etc. Even here we recognize that while no one is permitted to lie, a person may not be forced to tell all the truth that would incriminate himself, and to ensure this, we have the "5th Amendment" in our state and national constitutions. In other words, the person still cannot lie, but he may refrain from that part of the truth that would place him in legal jeopardy, and only that part. The fact that most of us recognize that when this occurs the person is likely guilty, in no way changes the morality of such a practice as "pleading the 5th." No lie has taken place. And the same fact in no way disposes of the obligation not to tell a lie, even if not all the truth can be told. Implication in a crime bears a certain burden and an entirely innocent person is not the moral equivalent to a guilty one, in fact is morally superior, at least in this regard at that particular time. Pleading the 5th may make one appear guilty but this does not free one of the responsibility not to lie. The price of not admitting guilt is that you may be considered guilty, especially if you are. An innocent person has no problem with the 5th amendment, because he does not need to use it in most cases, usually all of them, with the rarest of exceptions.

If any party has a moral obligation to tell the truth to those entitled to it, it is the media organs, which distribute information to the public at large. Now when we speak of truth here, we mean that which can be ascertained as such, or has been understood us such, either in the natural law, physical laws of nature, and long-standing experience with human nature, and that have a personal impact on you and me and that which we have a moral right to know under the claims of social justice. As to the ascertaining of the truth, the burden is on us, the information purveyors where reasonable means exist. If you simply do not know something, have no way of knowing that you do not know at a particular time and have done your best to learn what is needed for an informational segment, all that is required is a later update with correction as there was no hidden agenda in operation. Sometimes people pass on bad information to you but with all the "documentation" attached and so forth. Human beings need to be accorded a certain leeway, but not a brazen or reckless disregard for the truth where it is known and can be learned by the usual methods available. Then you are dealing with malice, bias and so forth, depending on each situation, not simple unavoidable human error due to a bad day at the desk, which happens to all of us from time to time.

Blind prejudice may predispose us to want to overlook inconvenient truths, but we are obligated to set our prejudices aside for the sake of the truth. But once in possession of actual truth, neither should we allow ourselves to be persuaded that we are holding on to prejudice, rather than the truth. Neither are we entitled to private sexual gossip, in fact should reject it at all times it is offered to us. We are not even entitled to the private sexual lives of our rulers and leaders unless it has a direct bearing on public policy or some other public good. Public persons are still entitled to keep their private sins secret in accord with Catholic moral theology and practice. By private we mean as naturally and usually considered such, not just sins with public impact but kept merely secret, thus labeled "private" because they are as yet undisclosed. 

I don't need to know about Senator Claghorn's aunt's abortion when she was 16 unless that abortion was a direct influence on his pro-abortion record. Knowing the emotional tie could help me reword how I approach him in a letter on the matter. I never need to know if he uses Viagra unless he promotes it for monetary gain illicitly. In regards to the former, the disclosure is best divulged by Claghorn himself as only he is certain of the emotional tie-in and should only be disclosed if he is trying to justify his voting record, however misguided, as long as he is sincere. The motive can never justify abortion, but one can see the other party as not being necessarily motivated by malice or thoughtlessness. If a third party decides to take the initiative and is wrong, the aunt of private life is damaged for no justifiable reason. She may have knowingly sinned but she is entitled to her good name except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Knowing about the other person's sins can have a bad effect by lowering the the bar of conduct. If enough people are seen as doing something it tends to legitimize the action; this is just part of our fallen human nature. In fact, private sins should remain that precisely for these two reasons, to avoid scandal as well as protecting another's right to a good reputation. The Church is wise in teaching us to not disclose the private sins of others that do not involve innocent victims who need social support and legal aid and other similar cases.

As for the acquisition of accepted truths, for instance, we do not need a scientific experiment or a sermon from the pulpit to know that generally speaking, young boys are more inclined to be physical in altercations than girls are. The fact that some boys do not fall into this category in no way de-legitimizes the notion that girls are less prone to violent acts when provoked than boys are. This a naturally observed [with regular frequency] phenomena that a normal, rational person accepts. We are not saying that we have to like it, just that we know this is the case until the boy learns to internalize the norms of behavior within society. There is no right or wrong, about the fact, it simply is. And as such it can not have "extremes" and a preferred middle approach. If any part of this fact on boys is missing, that omission is the extreme, but then it is not truth, it is untruth. Truth itself is not an extreme. Untruth, to the extent it falsifies truth and prevents it from being promoted is by definition, extreme, because it opposes that which is real and or good and ordained or permitted by God. Now, there are of course implications because of this known fact about lads, but that is another matter, apart from the fact that boys are more physically active than girls in some of their social responses at a young age. Most men are not inclined to the same degree of physical reaction as when they were young as they have matured, etc. 

Opinion occurs when we discuss about what to do in relation to the behaviors that are causing social disruption because of this tendency. Note, the fact of the tendency is not in dispute, but what to do about the implications that impinge on the social order may be and often are in dispute. As long as the opinions focus on what to do about a known fact's implications, and only for the sake of the common good, as understood by the Church [which also includes the individual who is not opposed to the natural or Divinely ordained social order] and until recently, by most of society, then the opinions are thought to be deserving of the right to be heard because we have not arrived at a solution that can be determined to be worse than the ill it purports to overcome, and in theory at least, have not violated the natural law or Divine law. 

But, because someone makes a claim for the right of the bully, we do not feel impelled to accept his use of language that frames the issue to his benefit. We go on asserting society's just claim to protect family life and the general good and in the proper language that accompanies such a responsibility. In other words, we do not adopt the suppositions of the bully proponent, either by use of his verbal strategies or acting as if we had to apologize for not wanting bullies to have rights as bullies per se, or letting the opponent characterize us as bullyphobic. We are well within our rights to act to secure human decency for all citizens, no one can bully even the bully, not because the bully has rights as a bully, but because apart from his bulliness he is a human being and is to be accorded human dignity as much as possible, provided that he does not interfere with another's right to be free of personal harm, physical and otherwise [threatened by fear]. We especially do not let the bully bully us into adopting his irrational and destructive objectives.

But if the bully is publicly so obnoxious and threatening, he may be physically restrained for a time, and certainly curtailed or limited in some of his freedoms in the workplace, etc., which is dependent on behavior, voiced or acted out. The bully can make no moral claim that he has to be tolerated on the school playground, and elsewhere, in so far as he asserts a claim to be a bully equal to non-bullies. The very possibility that he may act out his bulliness may be threatening enough to the order of the playground. To obtain the right to be on the playground he has to accept the rules of the established natural social order, at least to observing them while there. Note the order is the natural social order as ordained by God using human nature's best instincts, founded on the traditional family as the basic unit, not an artificially contrived one for some exclusively social-political purpose, such as Hitler's "new world order."

In fact, we do not permit him, the bully, in some circumstances to even make the claim of the right, at least not with respect, even if there is no legal mechanism for banning the right to make the claim. In other words, he may squawk, but he is not accorded authority in regard to the claims of bulliness, no matter how "natural" being a bully appears to him and his allies, usually other bullies and those who want to overturn the natural social order because of their own deviant attitudes in some other area of human behavior, and any means will do as will allies.

But if someone said to you, a boy has a right to be a bully because bullies have rights, who would take him seriously? His side would not even be accorded respect, although we in no way mean to say that the bully in question should be treated in similar fashion.  Bullies, as persons have rights as persons, but do not possess a right to be a bully as such. Privately we may not be able to do anything about the behavior that is confined to the home, and we should not, unless asked by the parents for help, but we in no way accord the bully a right to that behavior. 

The fact that a person can be both a human being with rights and dignity and a bully at the same time is not the same thing as to equate the bully with the personal rights of the individual. In fact, because we are all created by God, unequal in grace [the gift of religious faith] and talents, but equal in our humanity and destiny by God, we have a responsibility not to act like bullies, physically punching others or intentionally goading them. To be a bully violates our own dignity and reduces our claims to freedom, and makes an inherently unequal situation more so. 

Life is full of such examples, commonly understood human events and likelihoods that we know from everyday experience. These, too, are included in what is called "truth." And by truth we exclude those opinions that impact the truth in a deceitful or less than honest manner, and include opinions that are held by persons striving to conform to the natural order of the Divine law, even if eventually discovered to be misguided. We do not mean opinions disguised to hide an immoral ideology, such as pedophilia or bestiality, for example.

Opinions are valid in so far as a right to a behavior that has a right in the first place are being invoked. In other words the right to murder, to plunder, to rape, and so forth can not have legitimate opinions surrounding them, unless the opinion is that these are evils not accorded the right to be right, in which case, the opinion is not an opinion but a valid observation in accord with the natural and Divine law; and any opinion that promotes these social menaces as a good are not opinions, but something other, usually a deliberate lie or manipulation of facts to maneuver an evil into an morally acceptable position viz a viz what is morally licit. People may claim they have a right to an opinion that murder is a good thing, but they have no such right as evil has no rights, period.

I am not suggesting that we lock these people up, only that we are not morally or legally obligated to provide them with bully pulpits, pardon the pun, or an equal platform as what they intend will harm the common good, let alone private individuals. If they are to have a platform they will have to devise their own means without our willing cooperation. 

There is no right to "balance" where wrong is concerned. The individual may be sincere, that is, sincerely wrong without moral guilt but this does not impart moral equivalency to him anymore than we would permit an innocent person to unknowingly poison our food, if we knew he was using poison, mistaking it for a wholesome ingredient and of the opinion that he was helping someone. He would be stopped, not given moral equivalency out of respect for his sincerity. We could not take that chance and we would not. And poison, any kind of poison, is, well, poison, apart from any motives. 

Opinions, of the valid motivation kind, are not truth in themselves, of course, but if valid, are sincerely seeking truth, that is the absolute truth that can be known from the natural order by reason and from the Divine order by Revelation, and are thus included in the ambit. When I say valid, we are not judging the interior motives of well-meaning persons offering unthought-through opinions, only the relation of the opinions to actual truth seeking and truth already known, as in the poison case above. Of course, it is also understood that we know from experience that some people are less well motivated than others, but this is not germane, as it is the relation of the opinion proffered to known reality that matters.

But our society is so far advanced down the hole of irrationality that we often hear someone advocate their opinion or ideological imperative as a "truth" that is okay, no matter how irrational or destructive because all truth is seen by them as subjective; of course they conveniently overlook the inconsistency of advocating that truth is subjective as an objective factotum we all have to accept. 

But if truth does not exist apart from my willingness to accept it as such, then how can anyone assert that I must accept the objectively purported bromide that truth is subjective? Is not the observation that truth is subjective subject to the same subjectivity that they want to attach to actual reality? If I want to act as subjectively as they want to act for themselves in regard to truth telling, then am I not free, by their rules, to reject their standard that truth is subjective without examining their proposition?  If they assert back that I am not free, then they are saying in actuality that truth is subjective for them, but one "truth" is objective for me, the one they want me to accept in order to allow them to play God. 

Of course, in reality we know that by definition truth is indeed objective, or there is no standard by which to claim its existence in the first place. A standard does exist. The only one qualified to maintain that standard is the person who knows that truth is objective and is willing to make the necessary personal sacrifices to protect it from immoral incursions on its righteous hegemony. That person is the person who serves the one true God from which all truth comes and with it the authority to propose it. While Americans may disagree Who that true God is, or even if He exists, in reality there is but one God and He does exist, and we are bound by conscience to seek Him sincerely; since He wills that all men be saved if they cooperate with His will and the graces distributed to them through His Sacraments as merited by His death on the Cross, anyone sincerely looking for Him, will indeed find Him; if there is any dispute on His existence or Who He Is, that is the fault of those of His creatures who refuse ultimately to recognize Him, for He Who is all-powerful cannot but grant the prayers of a soul wishing to be saved and who is doing everything he possibly can in his circumstance in life to do the will of the one God; to suggest that it is impossible for anyone to come to the knowledge of God is to blaspheme by also suggesting that God lacks some power or will to save a man who wants to be saved. There are people who do not accept that the world is "round" as opposed to "flat," but this has not stopped those of us who know the truth from establishing it as such in this regard and exercising guard over it; now, since knowledge of the earth is a good thing but not necessary to eternal life, how much more important is that knowledge that brings salvation? Thus, how much more important to guard the truth that saves mankind! 

When you think about the inconsistency on the part of the subjectivity minions, this is not only hypocritical but pretty arrogant! It's like the theologian who argues that there is no papal infallibility. I always wonder if he is stating that nostrum infallibly; if he is, he violates his own standard by acting as an illicit "infallible pope;" if he isn't, then we have no obligation to consider his arguments as binding on our consciences. Heads I win, tails he loses: he has fallen into his own trap, every time.

The biggest and cruelest tyrants are always liberals in the end. They willingly break God's Ten Commandments or exhort us to, then impose thousands of small commands on us when human nature given free reign, runs amok. They want us to look the other way while they play fast and loose with the truth to suit their political and social aims, then they impose complete intolerance on the rest of us when they have succeeded; if we fail to comply we are branded and denounced as, you guessed it, "intolerant!" Why is it that the tolerance crowd is so intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them? Don't you think they should practice what they preach for the rest of us, by imposing it on themselves? 

This little digression is to rearm ourselves, to remind ourselves not to fall prey to their shenanigans in order to be considered thoroughly "American" and a fellow well-meant and hailed by others as "thoughtful." As Christ said the truth is a sword and most intolerant of error, pitting even family member against family member at times. This is but a reminder that we must be willing to be persecuted and slandered for telling the truth. If the enemy cannot slay the truth, it does its best to tarnish and marginalize, to "kill" the messenger, on whom the truth is dependent for its viability in dissemination. The new "tolerance" is really intolerance with a whole new set of rules to protect it from having to impose its own doctrine on its own advocates, while mercilessly imposing it on everyone else.

Those of us who do know the truth will never impose it as a belief on others; what we seek is the freedom to hold to it out of reverence for God and in the hope to work out our salvation in fear and trembling along with the Sainted Martyr-Apostle, Paul, and to guard it for others who may want to find it also. If others want to risk the loss of eternal happiness with God, we can do nothing to force them otherwise and cannot force them as this is not God's will either. He did not chase after those who chose to not believe Him or in Him, He merely continued about His Father's business, so to speak. This is what we seek and attempt to accomplish day by day, encumbered by the whims of a falsified, paganized [in practice if not formal belief] society or not. 

Now, since all truth is from God, even those truths that are not theological in nature, belong to Him as He is the author of all life and all truth that flows from Him, the Truth itself; any secular truth, not rooted in the love and knowledge of God, eventually becomes corrupted or subject to falsification, spreading confusion upon the land. 

This is what is happening now in society when there is so much falsifying, deception, contradictory notions within same ideologies, and the like. God is permitting our adoption of false gods through materialistic over-indulgence, sexual promiscuity and perversion and homicides of every kind at an unprecedented rate to keep us blinded and in confusion, delivering us up to our iniquity as St. Paul warned us of; this is our chastisement from God, Who wants us to return to Him before even He no longer will extend His mercy. And as man has polluted secular knowledge as well with his own vanities and pride, the earth itself groans and heaves in response to the drenching blood from the human sacrifice of so many millions of helpless babies; the earthquakes will continue unabated and with fewer spaces of time between the tremors; even the earth shakes to wake us up from our revelry with self indulgence: no matter what kind of "scientific" explanations are found to explain these increased assaults from nature, at the heart of it is our infamy before God as a nation, as nations. George W. Bush or not, we are indeed not only slouching towards Gomorrah, we are rushing headlong into it!

Now we have our definitions and authoritative parameters for discussion.

TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

 
BOB DORNAN AS FILL-IN HOST ON THE "O'REILLY FACTOR"

For those of you who who have not closely followed politics, Bob Dornan is a former Republican U.S. Congressman from California who lost his last election a few years ago to a Democrat under suspicious circumstances that may eventually be proven to be fraud by manipulating the immigration and naturalization process. He now hosts his own talk radio show and substitutes for Bill O'Reilly on the "O'Reilly Factor," one of Fox's nightly talk shows. Bob Dornan has earned a reputation for brash honesty and bombastic skills and I mean no out and out disparagement in of itself, when I voice my concern that something has happened to the once feisty Congressman who never courted unrighteous compromise before.

I have had the opportunity to view Dornan as the guest host of "the Factor" a few times, and was immediately taken by what I perceive to be a change in approach when dealing with the enemy. On the floor of the House he took no "crap" from the liberals intent on altering our society by government intervention unconstitutionally. Now that he is a talk host he seems to think he must accord equal rights to all sides of every issue. That is one thing in of itself, but it is quite another to not use all effort to challenge the disinformation, lies, and other deceits hawked by the liberal spokesmen who so skillfully use the media outlets for their own aims. I had come to expect better from "B-One Bob." This change was never more apparent than a few weeks ago when Dornan interviewed a "gay rights" activist from Arizona, a member of that state's legislature and a member of the armed services in some capacity as a reserve officer, I think. He has "come-out" as they say in the media and now faces an uncertain future in the Reserves. He, of course, wants to serve his country as an equal with his heterosexual fellow-soldiers. There is nothing new here, but what is, is that Dornan peddled him softball questions and served more to promote his efforts by praising him and wishing him well in so many words. I watched that interview horrified because I realized how normal and wholesome this fellow seemed when Dornan finished with him. Now in personal life he may be a very fine person, indeed, but that is not the issue. What is not fine is his claim that his active homosexuality is not a detriment to society, in particular the service. Inactive homosexuals who strive for chastity do not come out for "gay rights," certainly do not want to turn society upside down. They aren't that self-indulgent. Ironically, this kind of person who find himself tempted by homosexual urges, but who struggles to remain chaste, is probably serving in the military without any problem with regard to the service, as he is not a problem, if he has appropriate quarters that prevent undue temptation. If not, his soul is more important than service to country.

Dornan was a member of one of the House committees on the Armed Services and should know better. He was so perfunctional in his challenge that he might as well have not bothered. I learned more about this man's goodness and his feelings, etc., then I learned why he should be opposed. Talk show host or not, every man's duty is first to the truth! In other words, the score was homosexualist propaganda ploy, 1, society and the service, 0. Now how can the viewers decide with full knowledge, if that is the purpose of FOX, if they do not truly have the truth side of the issue? That fellow had the floor more or less to himself. Talk about providing a platform! Dornan was just too nice and he made me feel ashamed the right side can't do better than this. We are in a culture war to the death finish and the enemy is not ashamed of any tactic it uses, how about just some plain 'ole' truth from our side? No more B-One Bob, just affable, one of the fellows, Bob now. I have not been able to tune in to him since, I am so saddened. Some changes of mellowing are not for the good! It was as if the assumptions of the enemy were taken for granted and that there are two equal and equally honest sides of this issue meriting a soap box, but only one of them effectively provided for to boot. Not only was this show not balanced in the media sense, it was not balanced numerically. 

Would Dornan do a show with the military alone, or would he feel compelled to provide "both sides" then? I won't know and no longer care. There is only so much demoralization and phoniness one can take within a lifetime. I may have to endure it from the enemy as a soldier of Christ, I don't have to take it from a deliberately fallen once former comrade in the war, who turned from his first duty in the line of fire! Someone told me that he found the same experience as I did with Bob Dornan on other issues as well, that he seemed to want it more both ways now, at least he gives off that impression. Dornan leaves you with the idea that truth is okay for him and he will continue to believe in it, but it's a big planet and let's all agree to disagree and leave it at that. Well, the enemy doesn't so agree and proceeds virtually unopposed accordingly. 

Dornan's attitude makes it easier for the enemy who in the long run holds no respect for the weak and the pitiless; they actually have more respect for those of us who maintain the line against their encroachment without respect to what they may think of us. We have no intention of being "hail fellows well met." They may not like us, in fact probably despise us based on their rhetoric of hate, but at least they know we are their avowed enemy as well, that we are prepared to cede no quarter! No surrender!

If you are wondering about the actual repartee, I had not planned to watch that segment at all, so turned off by Dornan I had become by then, but tuned in at the last moment without pad and paper, thus I offer general impressions only. But I am sure a transcript would be available from FOX. I am confident that my impressions fit the actual line of interchange. It also occurs to me that a so-called middle of the roader like O'Reilly would not want a bombastic "Right winger" of Dornan's former credentials, ratings or not, unless that "Right winger" had toned down a bit to keep more in line with the ambiance of the Factor's attitude. I don't know if a conscious deal was struck but certainly it is possible that an unwritten "gentlemen's agreement" has transpired. With friends like this we are better off with our enemy, whom I have more respect for, if you can call it that. Sometimes Dornan overdid the bombast a bit, but it was more refreshing coming from the "dude with attitude" than this new "malefactor 'factor'."

TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

ENTERTAINMENT AS NEWS FEATURES

The sneakiest attacks from the homosexualists come not by hard core news stories that have been planted, softball interviews and the like, but through entertainment spots and blurbs for movies for promotional purposes. Every season has its "gay" offering, both in the film business and in television.  Unless there is something very and unusually controversial by media standards, that is, the media usually just mentions the controversy and then runs the promotional spot without much ado. FOX News is no different, except it seems worse based on its own self-promotion as a balanced network. In fact, FOX News is far worse; the Big 3 networks have sporadic, occasional news during the week days and only a nightly news segment, of which only a small portion covers show biz. Of course the Big 3 also package their own entertainment shows, so we could say that is coverage of sorts also, but I am thinking of actual so-called "news spots" as such, which seem to be one of FOX's specialties, interspersed throughout the 24 hour news day. FOX also produces its own shows for its entertainment channel. 

One of the hosts for these promotional segments is the irrepressible Shepard Smith, now of the nightly Fox Report news hour, replacing Paula Zahn who replaced Catherine Crier's Report with the new "The Edge" show. If its popular, other than some music, Smith buys it, smiling ebulliently somewhat between the Cheshire cat and a choir boy, whatever inanity comes over the tube. He was made for the surreal atmosphere of the entertainment "news" spot. If he had not been born, they would have had to invent him. You can detect a chuckle, almost childish glee when he has to pass on some piece of salacious gossip.

Smith is such a chameleon it would be entertaining to watch him in action if our cultural heartland was not at stake. Even the homosexual agenda, relentlessly pushed in entertainment shows, is safe, more than safe with him. His not to reason why or question, his to shine with praise and promotion. The latest pro "gay" movie due out this month was no different. Of course, in the interest of fairness, he is not the only guilty party, in fact all of TVland except maybe for Michael Medved, the movie critic and two named below, falls into this category here, but Smith is so par excellence the prototype for the unchallenged assumptions of the cultural wasteland that is entertainment, he is mentioned. 

FOX not only produces some of the raunchiest sexual entertainment shows on the air, it helps to promote that of its competition as well. 

The next time you think that FOX is on the side of the good, the true, the brave, and the noble, think. It is so truly that Trojan Horse we talked about in our first article on the network, that is, poisonous, as the spirit of these little entertainment enterprises throughout the news day are pure sleaze, especially if there is a teenager in the house. I watched these spots solely to monitor and now that my job is done --- it is too sickening to go on with it, so I have to call it quits ---  those segments will never be on in our house, never! Actually, from what I understand, MTV does it better. What a waste of time for FOX but not for Satan who must be dancing somewhere in Hollywood right now. But for Sean Hannity and an occasional O' Reilly spot, and which host has some surprising insight into entertainment, FOX is not investigating show biz except for gossip. Tune out and save your soul! 
 

While we are on the topic of Trojan Horses, FOX has teamed up with the former Christian Broadcasting Network, which billed itself down to just the Family Network [FAM for short] --- no longer proud of the name Christian, apparently, to what is now called the FOX Family Channel. One of the profferings for children is a show hosted by a character who will remain unnamed, but who is known for his love of the sin of self-abuse, who was caught, penalized a bit, then set loose on the public again. Since he remains publicly, at least, unrepentant, what is Pat Robertson doing permitting this guy a format for respectability? There is forgiveness, but one needs to avoid undue scandal as well. Anyway, since FAM and FOX became a duo, the former CBN has slithered into banality at best and total idiocy at worst, for the most part. [Not that it did not have some of those elements before on its defunk afternoon magazine show hosted by a former model who should have known better.] It is shocking, sad, and very disheartening to see this occur. Wherever FOX goes, watch out is a good motto. FOX Fam promotes the Disney enterprise, no friend of Christians, especially Catholics [maybe why Robertson likes Disney so much], and the traditional family anywhere. 

Disney is primarily in business now to push social agendas, the homosexual agenda, one of its prominent beneficiaries. Sad does not begin to describe this fall. Disney must be hurting a bit financially as it is no longer a premium, monthly charge channel, but a freebie as part of some regular cable packages. They may not have been able to get enough subscribers, or else they are willingly taking this route in order to get as many souls damned as possible. I do not see how our culture can sink further into degradation without imploding from within!

TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

 
PAULA ZAHN'S "THE EDGE" INTERVIEW WITH REGGIE WHITE

Catholic Tradition still retains its perplexity about Paula Zahn, former news reporter for FOX's "Fox Report" a nightly news hour program. She is now hosting "The Edge," a format similar to the "Crier Report" and in that time slot. Recently Zahn ran a segment of an interview she conducted with a football hero, Reggie White, now a practicing man of the cloth, who has written a book about "fighting the good fight." One of his interests in public policy is that of the homosexual agenda, particularly its claim of the need for protection on a par with race. White, who happens to be Black, does not find that claim credible, and speaks out on it.

Reggie White stated that he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican and that he is a "conservative thinker" but not exactly a conservative as in right wing, in so many words. Now, Miss Zahn's interview with Mr. White was straight forward, perceptive and generally acceptable, as some of her interviews can be as we have already stipulated in another article. At the same time, she started the interview with all the liberal presumptions intact about race, that is, that Blacks are liberals, and if they aren't they are considered mavericks. Zahn brought up a conservative Black congressman who said that he had experienced a hard time in relation to the "Black community."

In fact, White had to reply to the charge in essence even if not directly indicated, thus his statement above. If a White person held the same views, he would be labeled a bigot, naturally enough, but he would not have to "apologize" to his race by explaining his position, as, don't you know, where the media is concerned, only Whites are bigots, and there is no need for an apology because we are already so evil we could not apologize enough. Maybe it's our skin color that makes us this way! White commentators are among the worst in pushing this calumny. It truly makes one wonder! 

Of course, this did not set back the wonderful Reggie White who is adept at just being himself which is so refreshing and heartening to see. But very interestingly because he is Black, Reggie White was left off easy in the bigotry department. He may not be for "gay rights," but he will be tolerated so-so. If he had been White, not named, White, no pass for him. Not that I want him slammed with calumny either, he can do God's work better this way, but it really shows the bias of the non-biased "you decide" network. The homosexual agenda was not quite so safe on Zahn's show, but not because she did not try to some extent, but because Reggie White unFOXED her without even appearing to try to! She also outFOXED herself by dwelling on race, rather than on the homosexual aspect.

CONCLUSION

During our philosophical presentation we used the analogy of the bully as a substitute for the "gay rights" activist, who operates within the media like a bully does. He shouts some demand or proposition, beckons his finger to the lesser lights huddled around him and they do his bidding for him. Then some poor feckless, innocent fella' is beat up pretty bad; in the media case, it is by false charges and slander, not physical assault. Unfortunately, partly due to the fallen nature of men, and partly due to some people's inability to effectively deal with frustration when confronted with the acceptability of overt homosexuality, some homosexuals are being pummeled, even unto death by heterosexuals. The fact that homosexual activists are partly responsible in no way diminishes the crime or validates it. But most of the so-called statistics on hate crimes do not involve acts of violence and some are actually in the mind of the hyper-sensitive "victim" who feeds on victimolgy for whatever sick purpose. And some are pervert against pervert. However, we need to acknowledge this because the hater-bigots otherwise known as "gay activists" have deftly used these crimes to advantage, in order to garner sympathy and to make their cause legitimate. They hope we never focus enough to reply that every town and state in the land has a law against murder and assault and that there is no need for more laws against these crimes.

The popular non-internet media are not equipped to respond to this shameful exploitation because the mass media functions by scandal, shock, horror, violence, and the exception raised to a universal law, with commercial breaks in between the highlighted spots, never giving the viewer time to think, it is just one graphic experience after another. In other words, hype is its lifeblood. The drama of a homosexual beaten savagely is, indeed, an ugly crime and makes for the kind of coverage the TV news hounds excel at and seem to prefer. The same barbarity occurs every day and under even more horrific circumstances, but the media turns away deliberately and arrogantly, that of the baby being slaughtered in the womb. So the hypocrisy wears thin after awhile, and it is more than hypocrisy, because the sort of coverage the "gay agenda" receives is most harmful. Every year the agenda widens and receives more plausibility and acceptability thanks to the media which controls the rules for the debate, if we can even call it that at this point. Only one side has to justify itself all the time, and you have 3 guesses which one that is, with the first 2 guesses not counting.

In other words, the assumption is that just because the sodomites cry "discrimination" it must be so and that their claims are righteous on all fronts and equivalent, no I change that to superior, to that of traditional Christians and others who do not approve of their aims for us. But as we have demonstrated, wrong and harmful notions have no rights, regardless of who makes the claim and merit no so-called "balance." And this does not even take into account the fact that even this "balance" is a sham to begin with.

This is because, the attempt to be fair by many media persons, and they do exist, fails because they are so overwhelmingly liberal in their broader world view, they begin with the blind and hypocritical presumptions of the homosexual elites, sometimes completely unaware, and they are thus unable to get past this, handicapping the family proponents from the get go.

The next time someone makes a false claim of discrimination to you on the matter of "gays," just use the very complete bully analogy above. In fact, substitute almost any other general phenomena that occurs in society for the "gay issue," and see the claims fall one by one. And always remember that homosexuality is not a birth defect, nor a birth right, but an acquired vice, that homosexuals are human beings created by God and as such, should not be indulged as petulant spoiled bully boys, that they, too, are to be expected to be men enough to hear the truth without whining, that we expect them to engage in self control like the rest of us. Homosexuals do not need to be indulged like pampered brats; to do so is to patronize them, and that is what the cowardly media does, favor their beloved pet bully boys, too afraid to challenge them, too afraid of human respect from the elites to do so, yet too afraid to know how far to let them go as most of them secretly do not want their own children to be "gay activists."  Of course a number of them are in all likelihood well-placed homosexuals themselves, as it is so in the courts and local legislatures.

So the burden falls on us as we have to rise against almost impossible human odds to confront an unnatural vice in the most unnatural milieu possible, the liberal media, which includes most certainly, almost all of the FOX lineup. Also recall that the homosexualists lie to us in so many ways, such as in saying that it is the "homophobes" who focus on their [the "gays"] sexuality.  Respond by telling your unjust accuser that heterosexuals do not form organizations titled, Heterosexual Men's Chorus, Heterosexual Library Association, Heterosexual Teachers Union, and so forth. The organizations that comprise heterosexuals also include homosexuals because sex is not the issue. Of all the choirs I have belonged to, not one excluded homosexuals, the matter was never raised one way or the other. So when the "Gay Men's Chorus" came on the scene it was some surprise. There was no need for it but in the minds of the "gay activists" who have deliberately set themselves apart as so special, maybe even superior to the rest of us. An underlying theme of all the homosexual literature, apart from the pornographic slant and the self-pitying bathos, is that eventually the homosexuals will be in control as they are smarter, superior, and more gifted that the rest of us. If you do not believe this, check out some books paid for with your tax dollars at the local library, match those against the books available on the pro-family chastity side and let me know. 

For starters I want you to tell me how many books of the pro-sodomy side you paid for without your permission, and how many pro-traditional family books you paid for. Then after you give me the bad news, then you can tell me about all the wonderful things the heterophobes said about us in their books and about how reasonable they want to be. The entire exercise after you have poured over the available books and articles, should take you precisely 30 seconds as there is none of the above to find, except in rare circumstances, usually because some liberal got a little lazy one day and let something pro-family slip through. And this is one of the dirty little secrets the media hopes you will never learn about.

As we said we will have to fight the fight alone on the human front, for our most fearsome enemy is not the "gay activist," however formidable he may appear, it is our neighbor who has grown lax with his own sexual responsibilities, who has been bribed by promiscuity, abortion, contraception, that is, sex without babies and babies without sex, for himself, so he is hardly in a moral position to do much objecting. He is too inclined to be silent, as it is not only easier, but down deep he recognizes his complicity. In essence homosexual sex is about sterility, but then contraceptive heterosexual sex is also. One is just not one of the sins crying to Heaven for vengeance, but no matter. Both will get us to Hell but not back. Knowing all this, we must not lose our resolve for if we remain silent our children will not even know what normalcy is!

TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

FOX NEWS FURTHER EXAMINED AND UPDATED:
THE FOX IN THE HEN HOUSE
 
ARTICLE: FILED AUGUST 3, 1999

THE FOX REPORT WITH PAULA ZAHN  AND THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
 OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE COVERAGE OF THE LATEST KENNEDY TRAGEDY
REASSESSMENT OF THE O'REILLY FACTOR

THE FOX REPORT WITH PAULA ZAHN

NOTE: Paula Zahn has since moved to CNN, but our observations and conclusions drawn from them are relevant since we report on those who report news and related stories to the rest of us.

As reported in our first article on FOX News, I had mixed inclinations about the The Fox Report newscast and other interview segments as presented by Miss Zahn. After more monitoring I can come to no other conclusion than that Miss Zahn either has an agenda behind the facade of news or is a mindless shill for nihilistic propaganda. If the latter, she has no business being a journalist, and if the former, she has no business presenting the news. The clincher was her reporting of bogus or junk research as hard news worthy of coverage in the first place, lending it an authority and legitimacy it does not merit and should be denied, specifically her use of the news hour to promote the anti-family, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist movement aimed at getting American society to accept not only fatherless families [if the father is heterosexual only] but motherless families [if the mother is heterosexual only or just wants a career out of the home]. Monday, August 2 her lead come-on was the report that new "research" proves that children do not need mothers and fathers, period, that "alternate" arrangements are healthy for their upbringing. Any look at what has happened to Black Americans in fatherless America should be research enough for anyone with eyes to see and a will to to acknowledge reality, and thus automatically raise the almost certain possibility of fraud.

Now, let's analyze this, apart from researching ourselves any so-called "findings" "proving" the above declaration:

First, one of Catholic teaching's most elemental truths is that real science and Church teaching cannot by definition be in conflict because truth is truth, period, that is, it is of one piece. Theological truth cannot conflict with actual scientific truth, because all truth is from God Who created all things and set them in operation for His glory and the benefit of mankind.

Now, children are conceived, born and reared in families with a father and mother as the parents unless one or both of the parents have died or are otherwise legitimately absent [understood in the ethical, moral sense, not the willful because of divorce kind, caused by the same absent parent who has no moral claim to an annulment as traditionally understood; such a permissible absence would be a father serving in a just war defending his homeland, a mother who is gravely ill for a period of time, etc.] If the father should die, the children still need a father, they simply do not have their biological father any longer. In fact, the mother may indeed remarry to provide such a foster or step father for her children. A male relative can step in and lend a hand in overseeing the raising of the children, and so forth. He would then be acting in place of the father, as a father figure. Now recall, that Miss Zahn's report said "don't need." Need is not the same as need but do not have. Her report of the findings as actual news served to blur the lines, letting the unthinking passive kind of viewer fall into the trap of equating not having as the same as not needing. The impetus behind the "research" was obviously to establish that not have was the same as don't need. She never said this in the technical sense, but that was the implication.

Second, even if were possible to abrogate the operation of the natural law and God's plan for the human family, which it isn't, but even if possible, it still would not negate the use of the sodomite as "father." A male, who is rearing a child as one of two adults in a pairing, regardless of the name given the role, is a father figure of some sort, by definition of reality as constituted. And the same in re mothers and lesbians. Now we can argue and must argue in respect to the suitability of such a figure raising a child, but that is different than pretending he isn't pretending to claim some kind of father role. What is the homosexually practicing person going to do, claim the right to a child as his to raise and then pretend he isn't a male and is not the person raising the child? He is not a carrot, a comet, or something other than a human male, even if living an immoral, disordered, deviant life. A male adult human being who raises a child exclusively as some kind of parent substitute is by definition a "father," whether he is legitimately so or not. And so forth. Now let's pretend [which is no longer pretend in some tragic cases where judges are awarding parentage to practicing homosexuals first and foremost as an act of aggression against normalcy] that this same sodomite who claims that his son does not need a mother and a father, citing false research, does acquire some legal custody of a child. Does anyone with a brain cell still operating think that he will suddenly turn the child into the street or the woods alone with perhaps a dog as companion, saying he does not need me, as he needs no father? Of course not, as the whole point in pressuring society through the courts and the media to accept and assist homosexual adoptions and similar child-parent relationships, is so that the sodomite can claim a parentage right equal or superior [if we believe some of their writings] of the monogamous, heterosexual family. If he really believed his own lies or propaganda, he would remove himself from the pressure tactics as he, too, would not see himself needed as a father, because according to the report if a father is not needed, then he is not needed regardless of the sexual proclivity of the father. And he most certainly would not go to the effort of abusing the natural law through the court to get custody of a child only to turn him over to "experts" to raise. Of course he will consider himself the preferred "parent." Yet the rest of us are supposed to swallow the notion that our children don't need their dads.

Third, the same report that said that children do not need fathers also said they did if by chance the fathers in question were homosexual and the like, both in so many words, more by what they did not say as by what they did say. Get it, Miss Zahn? You appear to have fallen for the oldest ploy in the book, saying two contradictory things in order to exclude one, without admitting that is the agenda, by claiming both as belonging to a general principle now obsolete because of some purported research findings, then reclaiming one [not intended to be excluded] as acceptable or more acceptable than the other one now removed as legitimate reality. In other words a variation of the straw man technique. Now, Zahn's disproportionate attempt at presenting both sides is not a defense because the report should not have been covered in the first place unless exposed as an out and out fraud. When both sides are provided, it automatically means that each possesses a legitimate right to be presented as a valid party to the issue. And when the "other" side is not given the same scientific weight, well then the so-called "balance" is imbalance. Wrong can never be right nor possess a right to even claim such a right. That goes double for sin, vice and lies.

Zahn's report did little to explain that the findings were "discovered" by a cartel of anti-traditional family types, which should have set off alarms in a real news hound or reporter. This is particularly cogent in light of the now known fraud of Kinsey and Company who used pedophiles to sexually abuse children in order to manufacture evidence to convince the public that children liked sex and that most of us are deviant sexually in some manner, and which "research" still influences most government school sex-ed programs; the now discredited findings of the deceased pervert/scientist who did "research" on the brains of homosexuals who had died of AIDS, claiming a difference in brain size as responsible for the deaths or a major contributing factor; and the most recent flap of the phony, and diabolical claim of the American Psychological [not Psychiatric] Association that pedophilia or pederasty is not unhealthy for children. Nothing was done about this evil, cynical propaganda ploy until a non-Catholic, an observant Jew, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, exposed the fraud along with the American Library Association's approval of child pornography under first amendment "principles." Our so-called American Catholic bishops were asleep at the wheel on the road of descent into apathy or denial so in vogue in our media-hungry bishops who crave liberal approval before the salvation of souls. Ironically Dr. Schlessinger was partially helped by FOX's Catherine Crier, but long after Dr. Laura had established the fraud in her own right, and probably only for ratings to benefit FOX. I say this because Crier is fond of having liberals on who promote all kinds of harmful acts. [Monday's Crier Report carried a segment about the upcoming Dr. Joy Brown TV show. Crier failed to alert her viewers that this same Joy Brown so accorded such warm accolades by Crier, is the one and same who approves of masturbation as healthy, contraception, "protected" homosexual sex, etc. What she gives with one hand Crier takes away with the other, depending which way the wind is blowing that week. Compared to Crier, Zahn is almost acceptable. But I will save the former judge and prosecutor turned TV reporter and host and intellectual marketeer for the occult for another Monitor.]

The last two months have witnessed a relentless, aggressive push by the homosexualists and their supporters in the media to promote homosexuality as a norm of healthy and acceptable way of life, from situation comedies [one two weeks ago with a female minister "marrying two lesbians" in family prime time --- before 9 PM on a network we all know and have grown to distrust completely], to dramas, and so-called hard news, covering staged events celebrating one long festival of sodomite days, weeks, and even a month, proclaimed by some authority as being theirs. We now have "a Gay month" officially established that the media feels compelled to cover. Two percent of the population has one twelfth of the year dedicated to them and their unnatural habits. Talk about disproportional representation! There isn't even a week for mom and dad, just two Sundays that really belong to the candy, florists and card vendors. I SAY THIS BECAUSE LITTLE IS DONE BY THE VARIOUS PRESS AND INFORMATION CONGLOMERATES TO COVER THOSE SUNDAYS APART FROM COOKING AND MAGAZINE MEDIA AND TWO MOVIE CHANNELS. Since the family is under attack --- we refuse to say traditional family, because except for death, and unintended divorce, family is by definition, as traditionally intended by God --- why is there not a month dedicated to families, to homeschoolers, to [Traditional] Catholics, etc.?

In addition to this persistent campaign to ram "gay normalcy" down our throats and into our vocabulary, one can be watching a very good news program, only to be interrupted by the local cable company's promotional campaign of a premium channel that features "gay sex," replete with a shot of two men engaged in kissing, again all in prime family time. The only way to get away from it is to either see no news at all, and move into a closet. That's rich, the deviants are in control of the culture, forcing the rest of us to retreat and closet ourselves, in our speech, our ideas, and our influence. The homosexuals, to borrow their expression "are out of the closet," and we are being forced into it. And almost no one dares to complain for fear of being branded a "hater."

Last, who would be raising the children, then if not the homosexualist [although of course the homosexual will indeed be seen as a superior parent]? Why the elite, of course, who always know better than the parents God gave to us as babies in the womb. Don't you see, folks, we are considered just breeders for the state which is advancing every day in its insatiable greed to own our children who really belong to God and to us by a trust given by Him under pain of eternal Hell if not accepted, from licensing parents after our licensed guns have been usurped [the Gov. knows where they are], to allocating who can and who cannot be permitted to have children and or raise them, to the outright removal into ghettos or prisons and work camps of traditional believing Christians after enough time of conditioning the populace, whose most sacred beliefs are slowly being denied as their right by the hate mongers among us who vilify us in the press and even in the government, now illegitimate for the most part, because of regulatory law, judicial violation of the natural law and the Constitution, etc., which includes outright treason! The talking heads in some quarters are now broaching less and less cautiously the subject of Christians as "haters" because of their very beliefs, and after smoking, hate as defined by the real haters is now the number one crime a person can commit in the land of the arrogant elites. I take back this statement. Hate is number one before smoking. It used to be smoking, but then the elites discovered a whole new political sin "hate." Of course I don't mean hate as human beings have always understood and condemned it until now.

To her somewhat credit, the week before Zahn did a brief segment for three nights on the erosion of religious rights, which she then negates with most of her other reporting night after night and day after day, by marginalizing those traditional Christian beliefs through the spreading of modern ideas of morality and truth itself by giving "both sides time to air their points." It was a weak sop to the weary. Let us remove the e from weary and become most wary indeed.

FOX News says, "You decide." Right, Paula Zahn. It helps to have all reliable information known and possible to report in order to do that. You are not giving it to us. If anything you are confusing the younger dumbed down generation [public school casualties] and the frightened older generation [through politically engineered class and generational warfare], and that's worse than old fashion propaganda, where only the liberal point of view is given outright. A little of the truth and God given morality dosed out among so much poison is devious and insidious. FOX leads the viewer to think he can let his guard down just a bit, at least, at the very moment he should have a heightened awareness of what is actually occurring for the benefit of the atheistic and or modern pagan elites who have staked out the power points of cultural change [read upheaval].

A number of legitimate studies have shown that fatherless families or single mom families have children with special problems in higher proportion than children raised in traditional two parent households. In fact, after the first few years, the presence of a traditional heterosexual father is the single most important factor or determinant in whether the child will grow up into a healthy moral adult, all the good mothers not withstanding. It wasn't for nothing that God appointed the father as the head of the human family, not the mother, which is not to negate the need for the mother, but to assign authority and thus parenting in its due proportion. Patriarchy is the God-given norm, not matriarchy. What God commands is normal, period. Where families, through no fault of their own are fatherless or manless, we have a moral obligation as neighbors to lend a hand, but we must never claim that the situation is okay as a norm or standard. God designed the human family, not the media experts. How audacious of Zahn to promote a so-called research study that claims to repudiate the will and intention of God! Any such report should be seen for what it is by definition. There can be no credible study to prove that the natural law is non-existent or does not matter even if it does exist!

This same media would never accept a report that no human being as an individual requires sexual intimacy to survive, even though this is an self apparent axiom. The media would be aghast to think that anyone might consider celibacy if not married for the sake of having children! Celibacy is not unhealthy to the human body. Priests have one of the best longevity records in modern society, far surpassing those of single men who are promiscuous. Married men have a higher rate, which is not an argument for sex, but one for normal family life. Non-married and or unnatural sexuality leads more souls to Hell than any other sin. FOX would never seriously consider a psychological survey that attempted to demonstrate any quantifiable aspect of this reality. So the only rational conclusion is that FOX News has sold out for the most part, prepared to report bogus science and unreport the real thing disproportionately. I won't hold my breath waiting for Zahn's report of scientific fraud re sex and its incumbent roles and responsibilities as I won't regarding her reporting of all those other studies that would expose the fraud of Monday night. Knowing that Miss Zahn is bright, it is almost impossible to believe that she is being duped by those who "manipulate" the media. I am convinced that down deep somewhere inside her, she knows the score, rather than being unaware of those who shamelessly use the media to spread their nihilistic ideology. That's our decision, FOX.
 

TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

OBSERVATIONS ON THE JOHN KENNEDY DEATH COVERAGE

During the Littleton coverage, FOX News correspondents never mentioned the religious affiliation of the shooters, or their lack of one, for that matter, all the while the religion of the victims was a constant theme running in and out as a main thread in the tapestry, although crosses have been banned from the memorial site. The truth about Christianity in the traditional sense [read Catholic for our purposes here] is a veritable unknown quantity in most media reports, even though this democratic republic was constituted solely for a religious people if we are to take the Founders at their word, who read the New Testament regularly.

So we heard comments, repeatedly, such as "It isn't how long you live but how fully you live," and "the Kennedys are strong because of their Catholicism." And so forth. Heck the first statement, the one most broadcasted, could have been uttered by an atheist and is something one hears the atheist say even though it is actually true. We needed a priest for this? No priest took advantage of their momentary pulpit to inform viewers that the fullness of life is dependent on being in the state of grace and practicing the faith etc., including the urgent need of Purgatorian prayers for the deceased caught by death so unexpectedly; that we do not know the hour when we will be called to render an accounting. The priests and other commentators of FOX News focused on the secular charities of Kennedy and his kindness to others, which I am sure was genuine, along with his apparent humility. But we heard nothing about the duty of Catholics to be pro-life, that it is a paramount duty in political life to oppose abortion, and to honor the Sacraments of the Church, such as burial rites. True humility subordinates the wish to be politically correct to the demands of the moral and natural law.

We learned that cremation was permitted [it is not preferred] and even under what circumstances [as long as the intention is not to deny the Resurrection], but the priests conveniently did not tell the public that ashes cannot be scattered at sea, but must be buried just as a body is buried. Then there was the constant talk of all the eulogies that were to be given. Catholics cannot be eulogized, which amounts to a canonization psychologically speaking. Let the magazines and weepy media persona eulogize their American icon. One reporter, not on FOX, turned to a guest and asked, "Do you think he is in Heaven?" We don't know what Kennedy's judgment was but we have to hope that because there was some indication he had 40 seconds warning that this was enough time for repentance.

We know he openly supported abortion promoters, never giving his annual Profiles in Courage award to a known pro-lifer. We know that he never used his position, power, and celebrity to say abortion is wrong. We know that the paramount evil of our day is abortion and is unique among our social evils, even according to our liberalized Bishops. We know that he was a business colleague of Hustler's Larry Flint, the celeb pornographer, who was about to close a deal with Kennedy's GEORGE magazine to help the falling financial situation of the publication. We know that the magazine itself featured partial nudity on its covers. We have to pray for his soul, with the hope it is in Purgatory. No priest indicated that in all the interviews. And because FOX got the warm fuzzy stuff, the priests were accorded celebrity status and showered with a zillion praises with promises to have them back. We even heard that the Kennedys had their own "style" of Catholicism and that we had to make allowances for them. What?! Since when has the Church taught that celebrities can write their own brand of Church teaching while the rest of us lesser mortals have to risk Hell if we don't live a live of Catholic virtue? Never, but you would not have known this from the media blitz of the Kennedys' religious "values." We do not know what those "values" are because that word itself has become a code word for "he's okay" as in "he has 'values'." Ibid for the bandied about term "faith." CNBC and CNN were as guilty but we watched mostly FOX because the Channel is known to have reporters who practice Catholicism, but they appeared to be as ignorant as the priests. It was also telling that the only parish that could be thought of was the one where Kennedy's mother had gone to Mass prior to her death. There was no priest to be found who saw Kennedy at Mass in a regular parish. A number of Catholics here in Maine commented on that oversight of the usual hounding media who work miracles finding old school chums and anyone who even casually knew the person being covered, including passing neighbors.

So shocked was I by the cavalier discussion of the scattering of the ashes, I felt impelled to contact FOX for a correction. Apparently the Channel had received a lot of e-mail from Catholics who did not know that cremation was permitted and FOX was happy to oblige with a line from the Catechism. Of course the hosts never bothered to inform the Catholics they were proudly educating that the ashes cannot be scattered. The reporter-host for one such occasion identified herself as a Catholic. So Catholics are still as ignorant as before, only worse, because now they think a sacrilege is okay. Prior to FOX's instruction, at least they would not have considered cremation so no danger of having scattered ashes. And now because of the "good" Monsignor and fellow priests, local priests will be pressured to to go along with sacrilege, and so it goes. FOX News cannot claim ignorance because they were informed. Do you think for one minute that if a Jewish rabbi contacted FOX with a correction on an error in reporting about Jewish burial that FOX would not have obliged? Now I am not a rabbi, but a lay person, but any reporter could have checked with the Archdiocese of either New York or Massachusetts to verify burial of ashes. Of course, in the case of the rabbi, the news readers would have broadcasted the correction for probably days as they should do. And they refused to do it for the Church. The next time you watch FOX News, remember from whence the source and that which is deliberately omitted is a way of lying as much as stating an error positively. A POX on FOX!

[I won't even bother to delve deeper into Uncle Ted's giving out Holy Communion despite an irregular remarriage and his sporting a high profile as a pro-abortionist, as this is scandal enough! O what lessons we Catholics learned that week!]
 

TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

THE O'REILLY FACTOR REASSESSMENT

O'Reilly has been doing a number of shows about the China espionage, and until last week, was reluctant to consider treason by our non-elected and elected rulers who refuse to cooperate with Congressional oversight committees. Well, I am pleased to report that even O'Reilly seems to have changed his position. His brain must have clicked in instead of his heart, at long last. For the past two weeks he has done yeoman's work of top quality exposing the treason and malfeasance of duty committed by officials in the Department of Energy, the Justice Department's Janet Reno, and the Executive branch. I cannot give him enough praise in this matter. Even the usually unbeatable Hannity and Colmes team could not match O'Reilly on the scandal. Thumbs up to him and thank God. I hope this is not a one-time occurrence.

Forward for Homosexual Watch.

E-MAIL

MEDIA WATCH ARCHIVES----------SOUND-OFF