February 27, 2007

Well, it's all over now, all but the beginning of the end of the rights of Christ the King and those who still profess to adore and follow Him. The US Supreme Court, you know that august body of men and women, some of whom have sold their souls to get past the Senate gauntlet----Samuel Alito, professed Catholic and non-activist, at the hearings declared that his hero was Justice Sandra O'Connor and that he would emulate her, not to mention the curious honeymoon dance of another Catholic, John Roberts----has once more shown its penchant for cowardice. Briefly, New York government schools permit Moslem and Jewish religious symbols, but no Christian ones. A lower court said that this was fine, that schools may discriminate. Of course we are not talking Satanism here. If the plaintiffs had been practicing Satanists or something akin, we know that no such discrimination would have been permitted based on other cases with similar arguments. We had one in Maine in re the penal system. But whoa, wait a minute, we are only talking about the image of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the Savior of everyone, absolutely everyone. Him? Oh, that's different, Christians will just roll over anyway, so who cares and just Who does He think He is anyway! Imagine how harmful to the common good is a little statue of the Infant Jesus during the "Season of Peace"!!!

When the Supremes could not even muster the necessary 4 justices to agree to accept the appeal of the lower court's ruling, they put their official stamp of approval on the arguments of the lower court and endorsed discrimination against Christ versus Allah, etc. No wonder so many Moslems want to immigrate to the United States. They can have their Allah, courtesy of tax dollars, and prosperity, too, all the while claiming discrimination so as to garner even more favoritism. This is the only game in town, now.

I am not surprised, in fact I told someone that this would happen and he was indignant that I would be so judgmental about the judges. Yet, the signs of the sordid times were written ablaze to anyone with half an eye and even less common sense, who has taken the time to study Supreme Court nomination hearings in the Senate. It was, sadly, to laugh when Republicans, many of them Catholic, were willing to look the other way at the unsuitability of Bush for President, because, as they put it, "we need those justices, and Bush is our man there." Right. Oh how I was castigated by those who should have known better for my refusal to support Bush. It happens every time, every time. GOP presidents have a contrary streak in their judgment. You can always count on them to nominate at least one liberal wannabe who turns out to actually make the upgrade from borderline to full-blown. By definition the craven, confused and otherwise, are as good as liberals, maybe better, for the new world agenda. And what does this case say about John Roberts, the Chief Justice who was supposed to be such a "good shepherd"? I can't even begin to address the irony!

Meanwhile the highest court in the land and our dictators from on high from whom there is no appeal, given the meltdown in the national will, has agreed to oversee police chases in vehicles. Careening police cruisers after felons attempting to escape, well, now, that's different. Can't have anything slightly discriminatory there. It seems to me that if state courts can "handle" Jesus Christ's image, ought not they be up to handling police affairs? The police cruiser detail may be slowed down, but the runaway train that is America has not stopped even to fuel up, it just keeps rolling down those tracks to the gulag, 21st century style. When it does stop what will it be? Que sera sera. Fines for Christians who won't "shut up." Someone will eventually devise a clever stratagem to put forth the "reasoning" that will pass the stupor test in the media and with the zombied public at large. In our lifetime, well, maybe not mine because I am old, but certainly for many of you . . .

Filed by Pauly Fongemie, March 25, 2007

A news item came in over the airwaves that startled me, I could hardly believe it in one sense, but in another sense it was bound to happen since we human beings have abandoned reason for sentimentality and or utility, and when cuteness is in the mix, both.

As I understand it a mother polar bear rejected one of her young cubs and would not feed him, her method of abortion you could say. This is not an uncommon occurrence in the animal kingdom and in the human kingdom since Roe v. Wade made slaughter, worse than that of baby seals, of the preborn "a right". One of the environmental groups----they are legion----wanted the cub put to sleep rather than have the cub reared by human beings in an European zoo, I forget which one.

I immediately remembered a few years back when I was taking some courses at the local university. A young woman who was riding the elevator with me announced suddenly that she and her husband had decided to abort their child as they "only wanted two children when they were ready." I offered to adopt her preborn baby or to help her in any other way I could. She was incensed, as in outraged: "I love my child [she did not say fetus or product, etc.] and if I cannot raise it no one will! I am the only one fit to raise it!" I pleaded with her but she was adamant; it was Friday afternoon and she indicated that she would be seeing me on Monday as if nothing of importance had happened. In fact she did exactly that, literally Monday morning, and in the same elevator. When I recounted the incident [I did not name the woman although she probably told others also] to a few students they, too were upset, with me, not her. After all, it was her right and so forth and how dare I interfere or try to make her feel guilty. They had no cause for concern, that woman was beyond any possibility of  having an alive enough conscience to have the first stirrings of guilt. But if guilt would have been an option for me I would not have hesitated to use it, since a human being's right to life hung in the balance. If it is acceptable practice to break down a door to rescue a person in danger of death, smash windows, etc., in pursuit of the higher good, innocent human life, what is a little guilt? The same gang has no scruples about trying to make the rest of us feel guilty that we're not "all-inclusive" or for "diversity".

Now, contrast this with the bear cub named Knut. Imagine, this cute little fella was given a manly name of some substance, by the humans who adopted him against the angry environmental crowd. At least I give that bunch an A for consistency, unlike the rest of us who are incensed that a bear cub might be put to sleep because his mother rejected him, but have no such compassion for the thousands of baby girls and boys who will be butchered to death, not by lethal injection by any means, and who die a painful, unjust death and with no name at all.

Do not misunderstand me, I am all for helping the young cub since the zoo is fully equipped for such purpose and exists to maintain wildlife so that we humans can appreciate the animals who share the world with us.

What is so shocking and appalling that words almost fail, is that the same people in the media who despise or dismiss pro-lifers as do-gooders in error and as possible murderers----we are all violent, don't you know, or at least capable of it, as I had to hear again just this past week for the umpteenth time, with no one interjecting otherwise----are indignant that some environmentalists are for "abortion" so to speak with the polar bear cub, but not so with human mothers who abandon, no, make that, deliver their own up to a cruel death for whatever reason, rather than let someone else adopt them! Do they listen to themselves, do they recognize their loss of reason? Do they see themselves in the mirror, hanging upside down with the opossum who give every evidence of at least using what ability to ruminate they may have been given by God?

And to think that we are so bothered that the younger generation has rewritten the rules to suit the age of pragmatism and self-love, which define the tyranny of the now. Why not, pray tell, when we have done nothing to merit their respect and the taking on of tradition, when we have so cavalierly and ruthlessly done so much worse by speaking of right as wrong and wrong as right, an impossibility? We tell them how lucky they are to have been wanted because we could have killed them in the womb, and so they stop to think from time to time, what if I weren't so cute and cuddly like that cub, would I still be wanted? Did I have a brother or sister that was unwanted and put to death? Would they tell me if that were true? How come I was the lucky sibling among many when my parents chose which one us would live? I was hatched like a bird, I began in a petri dish, not in the marriage act, as preordained by the Blessed Trinity! What if I became disabled? Would I be called a vegetable, rather than a human being with dignity created by God in His Own image? Heck, since my right to live depends utterly on the luck of the draw, to use an apt phrase, poker being the rage at the moment, why not live for me and me alone and take what I can get now as there may be no tomorrow as I won't be cute forever!

As I was pondering these things in my heart I recalled most vividly last summer when a young woman was missing and there was an alert out for help from the public. News commentator after commentator expressed the thought that it was tragic, especially so because she was so beautiful, tragic and beautiful their two favorite words, a symbiotic relationship, as if less beauty, less youth, less tragedy. Does this mean that if she had not been pretty the public should not care or at least care so much? Do these so-called ladies [in very very short skirts who have the effrontery to gossip about Hollywood stars who wear scanty clothing] and gentlemen of the media seriously hear the messages they actually bring to the public, and not the ones they may think they are conveying? This missing person case is not the exception but the norm, if the woman is photogenic then the rally cry seems to be more passionate and consequently more time is spent finding what happened. I wonder if the bear cub had been of another animal classification and not cuddly at all, if the zoo would have been so inclined or if it indeed was, if the mediaperts would be so effusive in their compassion . . . no species of animal has a "right" to life, certainly no individual animal, unlike human beings . . .

There has always been a sense of shallowness about American culture, but now it is not just an underlying factor that may or may not influence greatness and our ability to achieve it, it is the very hallmark by which we measure all things, that is, after ourselves, of course, and that is physical beauty or cuteness. No one else need bother to apply unless they are rich, and barring that, unless they surrender all their dignity in total obeisance to the rule of skin-deep which has penetrated the very soul of the nation, leaving us clueless and almost completely without a soul at all. One of the faculties of the soul is the intellect. By any score we are what the vegetable crowd likes to refer to as "brain dead."

April 16, 2007

He wrote in an e-mail that acculturation was better because the Latin was not understandable; that what we had done in the past was memorize but without having the faith in our hearts, in so many round-about words. He offered no concrete proof, not one actual incident to substantiate this calumny. How could he know what is in our hearts. We all memorize poems and other compositions, addresses, phone numbers and so forth, which have no bearing on emotion. Actually one could make the case that because we go through the effort to memorize something of value, that we love very, very much indeed. Of course our correspondent is young and is attuned to the tyranny of the now, without ties to Tradition, thus he fails to grasp the Catholic faith in much of its necessities, its unity and magnificent, breathtaking beauty. Having imbibed liberally of the prevailing modernist----nihilistic----nostrums that worship the new and ever-changing simply because it "destroys" the past, he does not know that by following the "now" as guide, he is ever condemning himself to eschew what even he proffers as right and good. That is to say, if past is not prologue and mother, then yesterday's acculturation, which is past for him also, is neither, and therefore he must necessarily be adrift in the ever-abritrariness of change imposed from one moment to the next, surely more tyrannical and unjust than what he claims the Tradition of Latin and an unchanging liturgy were and or are. In fact one day he may wake up and someone in charge will tell him he must go back to Tradition. Will he accept change then? Hmmm? The Latin is a set language and is not subject to manipulation for political purposes, unlike our vernacular languages with their changing idioms and ideology as words are used to make war on reason in this age of audacity and reckless abandon. Just think how abortion became acceptable over the course of a single, greatly reduced generation!

A culture that no longer respects the sanctity of the womb will refuse to respect the sacredness of the sanctuary itself. Cut adrift from our own humanity and our connection with the least of our unseen brothers, we see nothing wrong with the profane on the altar. Catholicism is the most breathtaking and all-encompassing of any religion because of the fullness of its Incarnate dimension. Disturb the untouchableness of its womb, the language of the unchanging Divine, Latin, you destroy the faith over time, and in just a few short years, too. This why the young man no longer thinks like a Catholic, because he does not know how, nor does he know that he does not. He does not necessarily need to know Latin to think with reason, but he needs to be in an environment that respects it in of itself and gives it pride of place; such a place lends itself to the dignity of reason combined with the faith. Latin is the only language that can capture the essence of the faith and the Mass, and give it accurate expression, because it is dead not living!

Irony beyond all ironies! Pope Benedict XVI has recently called for more Latin in liturgies where there are multiple cultures represented. Absolutely! Why? Because of all things, it is far more "inclusive" than the vernacular. How? This should be the proverbial no-brainer, which it is for the older generation who was taught how to think, not what to think, or more to the point, what to parrot like robotons, because they are taught not to think at all, just accept the politically correct demand of the present subject to veto depending on what group is wielding power. This column is for this young man and his contemporaries, who are legion.

I come from a diverse cultural family background, almost all of it Catholic and from more than one country and more than one language as the first language. When "all the Catholic world was Latin" I could travel to visit the relatives elsewhere and always be at home with the Holy Mass. My cousins who spoke another language could also. We all had our Roman Missals, on the left side was the Latin and on the right was our native tongue, whether English, French, etc. There was no way to solve the problem about the sermon, delivered in one language, but that is to be expected, a point of necessary tolerance, as human beings are finite in their ability to overcome that which is not easily remedied without a greater burden being imposed. But all knew the Gospel of the day.

This serene unity and assistance to practicing Catholic families who want to spend time with one another from other localities is gone now, for we are punished with the paperback throwaway "missalettes" to match the liturgy of the moment or should I say momenette, with each priest interjecting his own extra word or odd phrase here and there, all to the accompaniment of the Protestant and ever more frequent pagan, earth-worship songs, not Catholic hymns. Those missalettes with bad translations that scar the soul and scorch the ear are all in the vernacular. So if one is unable to find the Immemorial Roman Mass and hopes to attend a still valid Novus Ordo in the country where he is visiting Uncle Henri, he has to take a crash course in French, let us say. Since this is not practical and altogether unjust, he just sits or should I say stands, if he kneels at all, through Mass saying his own prayers, which is precisely what the modern tinkerers said they wanted to avoid-----no more Rosaries at Mass. Interestingly the inability to know the language may not be so much a hindrance but an aid to keeping the faith. If the priest is a heretic one is spared the atrocity at least for that one moment of bliss. But this would be an irony lost on those who have lost the faith.

Irony does not begin to describe this so-called call to "inclusive participation", especially in such a mobile society with various options of transportation. Unless one is in one's own parish at home or is multi-tongued, one simply cannot participate, so the Rosary comes out much more often than it ever did in the "bad old days" of the Latin. Amazing, truly amazing!! But not being stupid, if full of arrogance, I suspect the tinkerers and change agents were not so much interested in our participation per se, but in destroying the faith itself. The salvation of souls is simply not on their agenda.

Even our attire at Mass reveals the contrariness of the imposition of the new. In the "bad old days" of "exclusivity" and "intolerance" we all wore our "Sunday best" each according to our station in life. The priest was garbed in his liturgical finest as well and he and we faced East, or the symbolic representation of East where geographical necessity prevailed, together, all dressed for the occasion. We were unified in our appearance, not just our posture, thus we participated more intimately in the sacred mysteries unfolding before us. During the more silent moments of the Mass, some of us could say a decade on our Beads, here and there if we were so inspired, and I remember Pope Pus XII applauding this, in support of the practice. He even said it was in keeping with proper participation.

Compare this with today's typical parish. The priest is still in liturgical vestments, albeit not always as noble or dignified and complete as ought to be, but whatever the climate or weather he is vested for Mass. Now the laity, who are constantly called to "actively participate" with the priest do not do so in their Sunday best attire. They no longer are "vested" for Mass, if I may use the phrase. They are more often than not in jeans and sports shirts, shorts, halter tops even in some locales. Where is the unison in this? There are only so many ways to say irony! Even more so, they will dress to the nines for a wedding or a big funeral, but not for Sunday Mass! Verboten socially! Don't you dare wear a dress and a mantilla or a tie and jacket, you are a riddle to be ridiculed and pointed at, to be avoided where possible like a communicable disease. Young children who have not been taught to respect their elders giggle, teens snicker. You know, that compassionate tolerance the modernists preach.

But do you know what is the most telling and thus most interesting revelation about the sham that has been perpetrated by the bishops and their minions, or should I say by those in charge and their lackeys, the faithless, hapless bishops?

During one of the 2006 US bishops' conferences, word had gotten out that a more faithful translation of some parts of the Mass was being mandated [well, okay not mandated as Rome rarely does this anymore]; these same bishops who demanded all those insipid, patronizing changes, year after year, were suddenly loathe to comply with Rome's request. The rationale? This is so unbelievable but true! They said that the correct translation, which they acknowledged as such, would be disruptive to the faithful now. Right. Oh right! When it suits their agenda change is good, when it suits Christ and His requirements for salvation, change is bad. What does this remind us of? The US Supreme Court when it acknowledged that Roe v. Wade was badly decided, but since the people were used to it, we could not change it now after all this time. Imagine being so used to genocide that we are bereft enough of human reason  and thus we must be left to our debauchery! The analogy we began with remains to the end, the disastrous end, from cultural suicide to self-imposed spiritual death.

Latin phrases, such as Language, it matters, and a specific language, Latin, matters most. Perhaps if we had retained the Latin we might know enough ecclesiastical Latin still to recognize common fœtus for unborn baby. This is why culture comes from the word for worship or religion, cult.

The US Supreme Court Upholding of the Federal Ban on Partial Birth Abortions
Filed by Pauly Fongemie, April 19, 2007

This will not be short, nor will it be sweet:

Pro-lifers are heralding the latest US Supreme Court decision that upholds the US Federal law banning the abortion procedure commonly called "partial birth" abortion. The purveyors of death fear that all abortions will be outlawed. As always overkill, pun intended.

I've been there, done that, rode the roller coaster that is modern American jurisprudence or the lack therein more often than not. I have come to the position that it is wise to wait, thus I do not have to do so much befuddled back-pedaling, which is not only hard on my feet and bicycle, but is devastating to my heart and mind.

What does this "most monumental win" decision as described by one Christian activist, actually say? Words and their context are paramount here:

First, the majority of the Court found that the US ban, which had been challenged as unconstitutional in the lower federal courts, putting the ban in legal limbo for almost two years, was thus: it did not say that the ban was constitutional on its face. It just said it was not unconstitutional on its face.

So you say,

 Well, does not that mean the same thing?

Yes, and no.

How's that again?

The context is all important, which we will get to in a moment, using Justice Kennedy's own findings. But for now let us use the old standby analogy.

Let us say I meet up with the very comely reigning Miss Whatever, and I say to her, "Gee, you are not so unpretty."

You, instead say to her, "Oh you are so pretty!"

Now, exactly which compliment is the most decisive as to our opinion on how lovely she is? Mine or yours?

Ah, I can see it is starting to sink in.

The fact that I did not say she was ugly is not at contention here. I merely said she wasn't unpretty, a curious way to convey an idea in the non-literary grammatical form. I am sort of saying I think she is pretty, but I am holding back a bit, as I do not make an assertion in the positive sense.

Yuh, okay, I concede your point, I know I would not like for someone to tell my daughter she is not unpretty, it is almost an insult actually if you think about it.

Right you are.

Now let's look at Justice Kennedy who was given the task of writing the majority opinion----what did he actually write? There is one pertinent paragraph that sums up the case, no pun intended. Nota bene the phrases in bold:

"The Act is open to a proper as-applied challenge in a discrete case. No as-applied challenge need be brought if the prohibition in the Act threatens a woman’s life because the Act already contains a life exception."

So, it is obvious to all but the those who want to believe the media spin----either way, take your pick----that despite the Abortionists' claim that the ban was unconstitutional because it did not provide for a woman's health, they are in effect lying, for what could be more germane to health than life itself? All any woman and her pro-abortion doctor have to do is lie once again and presto-hesto her "life is in danger", ergo, the infanticide is permitted, so much for the ban itself. A doctor who thinks that infanticide is moral has no scruples against lying, believe me! This is the second point.

The third is the first sentence: in other words, if the five had said the ban is constitutional on its face, then no challenge would be forthcoming [at least without real creative lying and distortion]. But the Court did not say this, they said in legalese, the ban is open to challenge, that is, it is only not unconstitutional on its face, meaning it might be unconstitutional if a good case comes up for consideration.

Let us now put matters in complete perspective instead of blowing trumpets [PL] or smoke rings [AA].

"Partial birth" abortion as a procedure is very gruesome, those in attendance see more of the "procedure." Few people want to participate and since it takes longer than other forms of infanticide, it is actually rarely done, comparative to the total number annually. Essentially you not only not "save the life of the mother" you risk it since she has to be in the equivalent position that she would risk with a breech delivery. Also it is a sham that it is necessary; honest doctors who are not politically correct know it is never necessary and even testified before Congress which paid no attention because it was not what the weasels wanted to hear. So the US law is actually saying that this lie must be given legal protection because the law provides this never necessary exception; and the law banning the procedure itself? Justice Kennedy is now on record saying it is open to challenge, bottom line. Since this kind of infanticide is so unpopular with the general public the five justices have managed to walk both sides at once, while being feted as heroes by naive pro-lifers. Nice work if you can get it, huh? And to think they actually get paid for this legerdemain. Now you see it, now you don't!

A most cogent aspect of our context is the Court's inability to come up with 4, not 5 justices, to review a lower court case that says that public schools----government tax-supported schools----may discriminate against Christianity. To decide a case takes a majority of 5, to accept a case only 4. This means not even the so-called two new conservative justices had the gumption and the legal prescience to take this case in all likelihood. So politically correct. Imagine it is now dictum in the USA that Christians have no rights in the public schools if the local establishment says so. Beyond comprehension! But then, we Christians are no longer a force to be reckoned with, we have rolled over and played possum just because everyone in the elite power structure points to how "bad" or unwelcomed we are. Over and over again we are said to be "dangerous" or mentally ill if we accept the Bible as written and interpreted by the Church. MS-NBC says so! C-Span permits callers to dial in saying that Christians must "be done away with" and the host [her name is Biblical----Susan!] says nothing! Before the Congress in committee is a bill that would outlaw or  criminalize Christian speech on the immorality of sodomy. [See FREEDOM ALLIANCE.] Would not a Democratic ascendancy in the executive office and more heavier still in Congress assure its passage and signing? Getting the picture in focus now?

No, anyway I look at it, the Court has forsaken the natural law altogether. Forsaken it on the sanctity of innocent human life, the right to life, property rights, and religious freedom, taking the Constitution on its face. The right to life cannot be taken without due process. Now due process means an advocate for and one against, witnesses, and the charge of crime for the one in danger of the death penalty.  In other words, a trial. And the accused has a right to a jury and the proper rules of evidence. Property rights cannot be taken without a legitimate emergency that serves the general good, not greedy tax assessors who can now prefer business against the homeowner.  What next, the bigger business against the smaller one? Why not, since the legitimate principle has already been trampled upon to establish the illegitimate one? Technically it is only Congress that cannot establish a religion. States are free to and their adjuncts, school districts unless forbidden by State Constitutions. But the ACLU and the courts have until now said this Constitutional protection was extended to other government entities also. Now, when it is politically safe to ban Christ----enough Christians embarrassed to defend Christ----they change their cacophonous shriek and the Court concurs!

No, looking at reality as it really is: as I said, I won't be holding my breath or any celebratory parties. Like the weather in Maine, one merely has to wait briefly before the wind shifts again and not always for the balmy better. From where I have been standing this past generation of years, it is always a Nor'easter ablowing to bring more insanity raining down again, barring direct intervention from Heaven, that is a miracle! Miracles happen all the time, but do we merit one now, after all our national perfidy? Only God knows. I wait as always upon Him and not the latest press release.

Filed by Pauly Fongemie, May 24, 2007

Saint Pio of Pietrelcina once said: "Blasphemy calls down malediction on your home; and as the proverb says, it destroys even the ashes in your fireplace."

If you ask most people, including Catholics, what they think blasphemy consists of, they are likely to answer either mocking God or taking His name in vain." And, of course this is correct, but only partly so. In fact, the very first definition of blasphemy according to any pre-Vatican II Catholic Dictionary is that of "heretical blasphemy", that is, the denial of His rightful authority and dominion in human affairs. Needless to mention, but we shall anyway, given the state of such affairs today, the really only true blasphemy is that against the One True God, the Holy Trinity.

A nation is a home, a homeland and like a home, wherein it tolerates blasphemy of any kind, but in particular, heretical blasphemy, it, too, will be reduced to less than ashes. For as the counsel goes, "God will not be mocked."

Over thirty-fours years ago, exactly one generation, our country willfully blasphemed through its highest court by denying the natural law before all mankind in its infamous decision against the sanctity of human life, Roe. v. Wade. It continues to uphold this affront to Heaven and to all those who seek God in truth, Catholics in the state of grace, and those sheep of other folds that Our Lord Jesus, said also belonged to Him and them He would bring, bring into His Church in some manner known to Him.

From that first utterance of utter contempt for the Divine law written in the hearts of men, the natural law, America sealed its doom. God will not be mocked! Countless were the opportunities, including the most recent decision on abortion, that God placed within our grasp to turn from this blasphemy and make atonement before all men, thereby restoring right order in society. We, through the court that we do not impeach and or recall, if you will, by citizen-led initiatives, continue to reject the mercy of God. Blasphemy, like all other sins of perversion, such as sodomy, rejects the natural order, courting disorder. God delivers such a recalcitrant nation to its passions, which always blind them, first spiritually, then intellectually and socio-politically. Perversity itself becomes the ruling passion, for its own sake. This is what St. Paul called being delivered up to iniquity. You get what you demand if demand it long enough. And so we are here, where Lou Dobbs, of CNN News finds so incomprehensible and confounding, a nation that does not want to be a nation, a country established on the natural law of justice that wants injustice writ large, a nation bent on rejecting sovereignty itself, and the very meaning of a nation. I am speaking of the so-called immigration reform bill. Mr. Dobbs appears mystified and rightly outraged.

I share his outrage, but not his consternation, for once we were willing to tolerate a Supreme Court that denied the authority of the Divine law over the rule of mere men, the ultimate betrayal, of what import is the second betrayal, that of our country, through our leaders, against its own people?

No, it would be an act of unreason to reason otherwise, for those of us who serve Christ the King, his Majesty, His Dominion, and take to heart all of His warnings and have studied history, both Church and political.

This bill, among other atrocities will grant by fiat, the right of these favored, fast-track aliens to have an attorney at taxpayer expense for non felonious suits. You and I, here under the law of justice, law-abiding, will have no such benefit. They are to be preferred over the rest of us as law-breakers, even those of us who are far poorer than any of them. It grants them full and free [at taxpayer expense] access to colleges where you and I may not, just because they are illegal and you and I are legal, all other considerations being equal. These two alone are perverse enough. But this bill is not only a travesty of justice it is a betrayal of the American people. Did you know that this bill permits illegal aliens put on the fast track to bring over their entire family, while legal aliens going through proper naturalization have no such benefits? In other words, cheating is rewarded and virtue punished. Did you know that secret hearings were held, not open to the public, so that favored groups could have input? And did you know that Juan Hernandez, former advisor to Vincente Fox is a special and favored guest of FOX News? He advocates for open borders and all of the above and more, and he does so with a sly grin on his face, one of veiled contempt for you and me.

FOX News is not obligated to have him on. We are at war. Can you imagine during World War II, after Pearl Harbor, and this bill is our own Pearl Harbor from within, that a news program would have on as guest to provide fairness and balance, General Tojo or his aide de camp? Ludicrous, unthinkable and untenable. Imagine an American citizen working to supplant, in the open, national sovereignty!! For another country's citiziens, for their advantage against ours!!! This is treason by any standard. And he is feted on FOX News, with another smile by the journalist who introduces him. Fairness is that he not be given a legitimate platform as if his goals are equal to that of the patriot. Balance would dictate that the whole truth be told behind the facade that Hernandez is just another well meant American. They do not inform the viewer that Hernandez served as an advocate for Mexicans living in the United States in a Mexican administration that promised to pay attention to its emigrants as never before. Vincente Fox called the Mexicans living abroad "heroes." And that Hernandez is working for Mexican nationals, not Americans. Not directly, one has to know all the code words and then go looking for the truth elsewhere. So much for
"We report,
you decide."
Like a dare:
We distort,
You can chide,
We don't care.

I call FOX News a traitor and although I have not ever been a big fan, I did tune in for some news, I now will be boycotting it until it announces it has ceased all acts of such treason. It is in the process of pouring fire over the ashes of what was once a proud nation, so much fire that it is annihilating the ashes still smoldering, themselves, just like our sovereignty. We have reaped what we have sown, one betrayal begetting another . . . from one Fox to another. Time for a dear Juan letter to FOX News. The show that featured Hernandez said "we need the ratings" on a previous segment. I wonder if they do care!


Filed by Pauly Fongemie, July 4, 2007

I'm sorry, but after hearing they want to sing OUR National Anthem in Spanish --- enough is Too much!

No, amend that to I am not sorry, I am only sorry I am such a wimp I began that sentence with "I'm sorry."

NEVER did they sing it in

Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish-Celtic, German, Portuguese, Greek, French, or any other language because of immigration.

It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts provide a translation that's NOT even close.

And if this offends anyone, THIS IS MY COUNTRY!

My father made sure his children would be proficient in English first, rather than French.

Do YOU sing YOUR National Anthem in YOUR COUNTRY IN ENGLISH???

Of course not, because you are not stupid, although you expect me to be. What you will not tolerate in your own country, you insist I must do here in mine. This is no way to show how well intended you are supposed to be, which is why your intentions are suspect.

And, because I make this statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!!!


Welcome to come through like everyone else did as long as you want to be an American and not a seditionist OR MALCONTENT.

Get a sponsor!

Get an honest job from a loyal American employer who wants to help his fellow Americans, not make a fast buck on the backs of illegal aliens, cheating his neighbor out of an honest day's pay for an honest day's work!

Live by OUR rules!

Pay YOUR taxes! So I don't have to, I have all I can do to pay my own.




I am tired of having to push a number on my phone so I can reach someone who speaks ENGLISH! And exhausted from trying to find instructions in ENGLISH that come with appliances; I have to sort through pages of other languages. OUR NATIONAL LANGUAGE is usually on the last page, upside down to boot!

This means someone who is making a profit does not care about your learning ENGLISH.

Besides what a waste of trees and other resources.

BUT I CARE, because I know you are capable and I refuse to insult you by pretending you are too dumb to do so. THE ELITES THINK YOU INCAPABLE, BUT I DO NOT. Who is really your champion???

AND PLEASE DON'T DEMAND THAT WE HAND OVER OUR LIFETIME SAVINGS OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS TO YOU TO MAKE UP FOR "YOUR" HARDSHIP. This just passes the hardship from you to someone else who can afford it even less.

You would not permit this in the country you came from.

And anyone who doesn't want to send this Sound-Off to someone for fear of offending anyone, then

When will AMERICANS STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS???

We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN citizen who does NOT make demands on other AMERICANS that's being offended!


WAKE UP America!!!

If you agree --- pass this on...

If you don't agree --- delete it!!!

Because that is what is happening to law-abiding citizens, we are being deleted, erased from memory in the headlong rush to trample on national sovereignty! One of the reasons the United Kingdom is being so targeted by terrorists is because they have lost their national sovereignty to a politically correct European Union that tells them what they can and cannot do. And what they can and cannot say. Catholic Bishops can not even say that homosexual unions are not marriages in the eyes of God without facing fines or worse because of the draconian measures of the Union. In the name of "rights"!!! Of course, OF COURSE!!!

Rights for some but not for all. Rights for the wrong but not for those who are right. It is now wrong to be right and right to be wrong where only the alien and the perverse can truly belong, and at the expense of the rest.

WAKE UP America!!!

This is the face of tomorrow when you look in the mirror of Great Britain et al today.

JULY 18, 2007

I often write about the irrationality of modern life in connection with willful spiritual decay by which we lose the light of Christ and His grace, the lack of which blinds our reason. In response, we stubbornly persist in our madness and turn not to Him in repentance but to political correctness and a gross distortion of reality by exchanging the value of a greater creature for that of a lesser. In other words, things are backwards and we as a nation exhibit contrariness carried to the art of the extreme. Even the most incomprehensibly weird has its own consistency as it spirals ever and ever downward into the anarchy of nihilism.

Three examples from the national news this week alone suffice to demonstrate that the tyranny of the absurd is in no danger of being vanquished:

In a rape case the trial judge has ordered that the terms, rape, sexual assault and rape kit not be used, even by the victim. His reason: it could prejudice the jury unduly---in other words, might result in a sure conviction, although he does not add this last clause. He does not need to, there can be no other reason. Instead he asks that sex and sex kit be used in lieu of the actual words that describe what the defendant is charged with. He was charged with rape, not just procreating with a woman not his wife. And why stop there, hey why not order the name toiletry case be used? After all if they were just engaging in, you know, non-rape activity, who requires a sex kit, whatever that is.

Let's pause to brush away the cobwebs and think with clarity, by applying an analogy. We will substitute a case of premeditated murder [homicide or murder one]. Now let us say that the presiding judge thinks that the use of the word murder is too prejudicial to the accused. So instead he demands that the name "intentional hostility" be employed to describe the act. Or maybe manslaughter which reduces the charge unilaterally, over the objections of the prosecutor. Now let us say you and I are on the jury. First we are going to wonder why we are there, for a simple trial about some pent-up hostility that caused a man to get a little aggressive with his neighbor. Usually these cases are held before a judge without a jury in most jurisdictions as they are not felonies. Now the prosecuting attorney, who is never permitted to use the word murder complies. Being honest jurors we observe court rules and do not watch or read the media so we have no idea about the judge's strange, unreasonable edict because he prejudged us as being too inflamed by passion to judge justly. Now we are in the jury room deliberating about a case of mere hostility where the victim is not there to testify because he is dead, but by implication not from murder. We figure something is going on. We have two choices: We find the man guilty of some vague hostile action that is not specified with enough precision to conclude we ought to bring in a verdict of guilty. So we feel awkward and reluctant about even this much. Or we figure out that this is an extreme case of PC and opt for murder and a guilty verdict. If we settle on the latter, the man has an excellent case on appeal, i.e. "I was convicted of a crime the prosecutor did not name. How can I be guilty of murder when no one ever said the word?" Precisely.

And how can the jury render a valid, honest, just verdict [whether guilty or not] if no one was permitted to name what the acts and agents being judged are? An incorrect premise usually results in a faulty conclusion. We probably will end up with a hung jury and a mistrial, the safest course.

The same thing will likely occur in the rape, er, make that unmarried recreational sex trial. This has to be the conclusion, because if the act was not consensual, then it was rape. The human brain can only rationalize to a certain point before total stupidity [and culpability] takes over.

PC, another name for the loss of common sense reasoning, or political correctness, is the religion of the era, this time PC standing for Post-Christian. No light of Christ, only the prevalence of the darkness of the numbing of the mind. If ever such was an exemplar this is it.

That is, until this next incident. According to the news reports some famous football star, the name and team are not important, for it is the outrage of the commentators that is being examined:

This highly paid athlete apparently was involved with the illegal use of dogs for fighting, so viciously that if a dog ceased to be useful for the brutal events---the Romans had nothing on modern Americans---they were put to torture and miserable deaths, such as electrocution. Now, sane, normal, God-fearing people who observe the natural law know that one is not permitted to deliberately torture an animal for the sake of punishment or sport. This is not the issue. It is the volume of outrage from the elites among the legal beagles, one class of dog I wager more than one non-athlete has considered for special treatment because of the draconian and contradictory laws they devise to torment us with. But I meander symbolically, somewhat with glee, I admit.

Pundit after pundit the cruelty to the dogs was bewailed, with raised voices, clenched fists, even the usual defense attorney types wanted this man convicted---generally if the offense is murder [human beings, not dogs] the defense side of the table is there with a thousand excuses.

Now I deplore these depravities, not just as a dog lover and owner, but as a Christian. However, dog cruelty is not so widespread as another moral depravity, that of willful execution of the preborn child in his mother's womb, his temporary residence. He suffers much worse than if he were electrocuted, as he is torn asunder from limb to limb, sucked into a machine. He is a human being created in the likeness of God, unlike the dog, and has natural rights that cannot be abrogated, such as the right to life. His body in macerated, bloody parts, is thrown into a disposal or garbage bin like trash. No lawyers to scream and demand something be done. Meanwhile the same talking heads consider it vile that the remains of the dogs were not properly buried and rightly so. Imagine! Millions of babies every single year in America alone in dumpsters and worse, maybe a thousand dogs tops strewn about some man's property. Maybe, if that many. Not a peep from the opinion meisters. Dog matches are not the going rage at the moment. One could not be accused of over stating matters by suggesting that animals have more rights in those quarters than little babies do, unless of course the murderer is his father, not his mother. Perhaps the athlete in question, if he is guilty, should get his wife to say she killed the dogs---a post-abortion abortion, if you will. Then the mediaperts would really have a dilemma to deal with instead of catching copious crocodile tears in their hands.

In modern life there is an axiom, the greater the outrage and fulmination the more inverse the actual offense. This applies to the elites who spin words into fleeting sound bytes for a living, not always the public at large.

Now we leave the hideously distorted moral equivalency for the plain grotesque:

 I repeat, evil has its own logic. One of the evils of our barbaric "culture" is the deliberate rendering of the human body into a monstrosity through the sin of mutilation, in our example here, body tattoos and piercings. I have seen little children, just past toddler age, with piercings, which means the permission of the parents, who ought to know better. That they do not seem to says much, sadly. One can scarcely enter a service establishment of any kind without being accosted by human beings resembling something that came through a punk band war zone. [Banks are still no-piercing zones for their employees, blessedly]. Zombies at the very least. Beyond grotesque actually. And because this sort of thing leads, if unchecked, to its natural, that is unnatural, fruition, the voluntary aspect is now giving way to forced mutilations---branding children as an act of punishment or contempt. Just as abortion has led to children killing their parents in record numbers and children killing each other, so body savagery is now beginning to be acts of wanton cruelty against helpless children who are scarred for life in more ways than one! At the present time the cases are few but I would not be surprised to find them the next wave of felonious assault. After all, if it is permissive, with government funds, to slaughter in the most savage manner a tiny little baby, what is mere branding like cattle? Perfectly consistent. It has come to this because we are come to far worse in our soul as a society, if we can even call it a society still . . . I mean, we actually debate what to do, what to do . . .

That such barbarities as self-mutilation are open to debate at all, revealing in of itself  . . .