US SUPREME COURT PUTS ITS STAMP OF APPROVAL ON RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
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
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,
mine because I am old, but certainly for many of you . . .
OF POLAR BEAR CUBS AND
PREBORN HUMAN BABIES
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
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
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."
ABORTION AND THE MASS: RELIGIOUS GENOCIDE
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
matters most. Perhaps if we had retained the Latin we might know enough
still to recognize common fœtus
for unborn baby. This is why culture
comes from the word for worship or religion, cult.
VICTORY OR VAINGLORY?
The US Supreme Court Upholding of the Federal Ban on Partial Birth
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
BETRAYAL: FROM BLASPHEMY TO LESS THAN ASHES
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
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
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
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
Like a dare:
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
LOU DOBBS OUGHT TO BE THE PATRON SAINT OF AMERICA
AND PAT BUCHANAN WAS RIGHT!
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
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
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE IN MY COUNTRY, THE WAY WE WERE WELCOMED:
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.
LEARN THE LANGUAGE, WHICH IS ENGLISH!
LIKE ALL OTHER IMMIGRANTS HAVE IN THE PAST!!!
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
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
he is PART OF THE PROBLEM!
When will AMERICANS STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards not to offend
But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN citizen who does NOT make
demands on other AMERICANS that's being offended!
THIS IS TRULY OFFENSIVE!
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
WAKE UP America!!!
This is the face of tomorrow when you look in the mirror of Great
Britain et al today.
THIS AND THAT AND THEN SOME
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
repeat, evil has its own logic. One of the evils of our barbaric
is the deliberate rendering of the human body into a monstrosity
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.
grotesque actually. And because this sort of thing leads, if unchecked,
to its natural, that is unnatural, fruition, the voluntary aspect is
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