If J. Edgar Hoover was a Transvestite then is Rudy Giuliani a Gay?

Is the Iraq War more Important than Christian Voters?

Unsubstantiated rumors that J. Edgar Hoover dressed as a drag queen have lead to numerous liberal books that claimed he could have been homosexual. Why is the fact that Giuliani dressed as a drag queen many times not evidence that he could be gay?

If he is not homosexual, he has a anti-Christian gay agenda that belongs in the Democrat Party?

A bigger question is why are so-calling conservative pro-family types such as Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity as well as Fox TV covering up Giuliani's real agenda and homosexual behavior.

Why are numerous conservative talk shows hosts around the country covering up Giuliani's real agenda and homosexual behavior?

Is the Iraq war more important than Christian voters?


Fred

Is Rudy Giuliani Homosexual?

Read the evidence.

Rudy Giuliani dressed as a drag queen doing a skit with Donald Trump for his annual press roast in 2000.

Rudy Giuliani dressed as a drag queen in 1997.

A video slide show. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid626919000http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=78144477


Rudy Giuliani dressed as a drag queen on Saturday Night Live in 1997.



Just The Facts

· Rudy has openly cross dressed as a drag queen on multiple occasions.

· Rudy lived with a gay lovers Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsiao in 2001.

· Rudy told Howard and Mark he would personally marry them.

· Rudy gave Howard and Mark good-bye kisses every morning.

· Rudy is a member of the Stonewall Veterans Association, a club for homosexuals that participated in the violent Stonewall Inn riots of 1969.

· Rudy was a keynote speaker for the gay Log Cabin Republicans group.

· Rudy hosted eight gay pride parties at his NYC mayor's mansion.

· Rudy attended eight gay pride parades in NYC while mayor, including one that included pedophile group North American Man/Boy Love Association.

· Rudy offered to be on the graphic homosexual show Queer as Folk.

· Rudy told his gay roommates he would consider taking up their lifestyle.

See photos(www.isrudygay.com)

Once was weird enough. But if a single transvestite appearance would have satisfied most public officials, it apparently was just the start for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. This weekend, Mr. Giuliani took his act national, appearing as a hirsute grandmother on SNL.
-Elizabeth Kolbert, Mayor in Drag? There He Goes Again, New York Times, 11/24/97

Giuliani -- who once appeared in fishnet stockings with the Rockettes and dressed up for a press dinner as Marilyn Monroe -- may have a tough time selling himself to conservatives.
-Howard Kurtz, Looking Back to 9/10 Rudy, and Ahead to 11/08, Washington Post, 3/5/07


I ask Mr. Koeppel: Is it unexpected that Rudolph Giuliani would be staying with an openly gay couple? ''I don't know if it's any more unusual than him wearing a dress,'' he says.
-Frank Rich, 1 Mayor, 2 Guys, 1 Shih Tzu, New York Times, 8/4/01

Marital problems force the Republican mayor of New York out of Gracie Mansion and into the apartment of a gay friend and his life partner.
-Jed Heyman, Three's Company, Picking Up After Rudy, New York Magazine, 8/31/04


'He did tell us that if they ever legalized gay marriages, we would be the first one he would do.
-Frank Rich, 1 Mayor, 2 Guys, 1 Shih Tzu, New York Times, 8/4/01

“We always get a little kiss, it’s cute,” says Howard Koeppel, with whom Giuliani has been sharing an apartment since June. When Giuliani was recently knighted, Koeppel tells The Times that he told “Sir Rudy” to call him “Queen Howard.”
-Ken Ervin, The Knight and 'The Queen', Concerned Women for America, 11/28/01



The mayor left for City Hall every morning after giving his two hosts a goodbye peck on the cheek — “a little kiss, it’s cute,” Howard Koeppel, told the newspaper — and how Mr. Giuliani affectionately called Mr. Koeppel “mother.”
-Adam Nagourney, New York Label May Not Fit All in Giuliani Run, New York Times, 3/8/07

Rudy W. Giuliani is a honorary member of STONEWALL Veterans' Association comprised of veterans of the 1969 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Stonewall Rebellion.
-Stonewall Veterans' Association Website, Published 10/31/07, Retrieved 11/20/07


The Log Cabin Web site lists Mr. Giuliani as a model for its brand of Republicanism, and the former mayor spoke to the organization's national convention in 1999.
-Russell Berman, Log Cabin Group Lists Giuliani as Ideal Republican, New York Sun, 3/23/07

Mayor Rudy Giuliani hosted his "8th Annual Gay Pride Celebration" at Gracie [mayor's] Mansion. It was held not as an early morning breakfast but as an evening cocktail party.”
-Stonewall Veterans' Association Website, Published 6/21/07, Retrieved 11/20/07


Giuliani has attended every “gay pride” parade in New York during his eight years as mayor. Giuliani took part in a homosexual “pride” parade that included a contingent of pedophile activists marching behind a banner for NAMBLA.


-Ken Ervin, The Knight and 'The Queen', Concerned Women for America, 11/28/01



Koeppel ribbed Giuliani by saying... Giuliani should agree to appear on Showtime’s controversial Queer as Folk dressed in drag. Surprisingly, Giuliani agreed.

-Ken Ervin, The Knight and 'The Queen', Concerned Women for America, 11/28/01

[http://www.isrudygay.com/]

Are Liberalism and Radical Islam really the same Thing?

Christians and all persons who believe in reason and transcendent truths are at war with liberal theorists and radical Islam.

English professor Louis Markos in his book Lewis Agonistes thinks that liberal theorists and radical Islam are at war with analogy in the arts and literature as well as with “transcendent truths in material images.”

Markos says liberals of the Enlightenment mind set believed only in materially observable “facts” and denied the existence of “transcendent truths in material images” be it art, literature or God.

Postmodernist took it a step forward by proclaiming that not only is God dead, but language is dead. They believe that words have no meaning even materially observable “facts.”

Radical liberal theorists of the postmodernist and Enlightenment mind set showed that this thought lead to violence against human life. Lenin and Stalin were Enlightenment men and Hitler was a follower of the postmodernist Nietzsche. Pro-choicer of the kind that kill unborn babies and homosexual identity gender changers are also followers of Nietzsche’s will to power.

As G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing - they believe in anything.
Radical Islam showed it association with liberal theorists when they firebombed and shoot bullet holes through Christian churches in West Bank, killed an Italian nun and threatened to bomb the Vatican with a suicide attack when Pope Benedict XVI gave the September 12 called FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY. MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS. In that talk he said:

“The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

“Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

The pope in the lecture countered this anti-analogy theories which ultimately deny transcendent truth by saying:

“As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as “logos” and, as “logos,” has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is “logos.”

Consequently, Christian worship is “spiritual” worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).”

Hopefully, Benedict began a dialogue with Islam. He hoped, according to George Weigel in God’s Choice, that Muslim reformers can find from their “authoritative text . . . that it is God’s will that we be tolerant of those who have different understandings of God’s will.”

We need to pray that Islam accept reason and liberals accept the existence of “transcendent truths in material images” be it art, literature or God.

Radical Islam will continue violent conversion and killing in the name of an unknowable God. And liberal theorists will continue killing in the name of the unknowable gods of Feminism, Marxism as well as Nazism.

Malcolm Muggeridge said it best:

"When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence"

Although I would add when mortal men try to live without reason or a knowable God, they infallibly succumb to Homosexualism and/or the will to power of Feminism, Marxism,Nazism as well as radical Islam.

"When Mortal Men try to Live without God"

"When Mortal Men try to Live without God"

Malcolm Muggeridge expained the the time we live in best:

"When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence"

Schlafly is for Duncan Hunter

Schlafly not keen on GOP frontrunners

October 22, 2007

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is expressing strong dissatisfaction with the top-tier Republican presidential candidates. She also questions the validity of the results of the Values Voters straw poll on Saturday.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly says most of the GOP candidates who have been designated frontrunners are globalists. According to Schlafly, candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee all “need to wake up” and realize they need the votes of Reagan Democrats to win.

“I think that’s a great mistake for the Republicans. I feel that it’s very important that they reach out to people on the jobs issue,” Schlafly shares. “I was quite disappointed with the debate that was broadcast from Michigan, which is an economically depressed state, and they didn’t appear to have any sympathy or compassion for all the millions of people who’ve lost their jobs that have moved to China.”

In the straw poll taken over the weekend in conjunction with the Values Voters Summit, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney topped former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by a mere 30 votes. Schlafly contends that Huckabee was the winner among conference attendees who heard the weekend’s speeches.

“The straw poll was interesting,” she offers. “People were able to vote on it even though they weren’t here. They could vote for the prior two weeks before the conference took place and before they heard any of the speakers.” And in her opinion, that means one cannot say a whole lot about the validity of the poll.

Schlafly believes all that can be deduced from the poll is that so-called “values voters” are still shopping for their candidate. And she says while social conservatives are divided in many ways, they all agree they cannot support a candidate who is not pro-life. The Eagle Forum founder tells OneNewsNow the only GOP hopefuls she is comfortable with are Congressmen Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved


(Note: Duncan Hunter was the only candidate to stand up to the front runners on trade issues during the recent debates, and he regularly points out the jobs we have lost to China, the trade deficit we have as a result, and the national security issues that ensue as China builds weapons with our trade dollars that are designed to combat our military, particularly our Pacific Navy, and that are also being sold to Iraqi and Afghan insurgents via Iran. Duncan Hunter has a PERFECT rating from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum)
[http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/schlafly-not-keen-on-gop-frontrunners-questions-weight-of-values-voters-summit-straw-poll/
]

Should we Beware of Huckabee?

I prefer Huckabee to Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson, but Baldwin makes some valid points.

Fred

Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
by Chuck Baldwin
November 2, 2007


With Christian conservatives trying to scramble to find a Republican presidential candidate they can support, some of them seem to be coalescing around former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. Janet Folger, especially, seems to be trumpeting his candidacy. But is Mike Huckabee someone Christian conservatives should be supporting? Not everyone thinks so.

Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s national Eagle Forum, said, “We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor.” Phyllis Schlafly herself was even more direct.

President and Founder of Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly, said this about Governor Huckabee: “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.” She went on to say, “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”

Even one of Huckabee’s strongest supporters within the Religious Right, Pastor Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, admitted, “Mike has always sought the validation of elites.” Of course, my question for Rick Scarborough is, With an indictment such as that, how can you continue to support Mike Huckabee?

According to an opinion piece written by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, “Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, ‘I know of no conservative he [Huckabee] appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention.’”

Fund went on to say that “Mr. Huckabee’s reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton.”

Fund also said this about Huckabee: “‘He’s just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,’ a former top Huckabee aide told me. ‘As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I’ll guarantee is that won’t lead to competent conservative governance.’”

Mike Huckabee is also terrible on immigration. According to Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, “Rudy Giuliani spent years defending the right of New York City to remain a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Yet Giuliani was a veritable Lou Dobbs Jr. on illegal immigration in comparison to Mike Huckabee.”

Regarding Huckabee’s stance on immigration, Mr. Minton said, “Until of late, he has been an open-borders guy on immigration–amnesty, the whole works. As governor, he wanted to give free college scholarships to all illegals.”

Minton’s assertion is backed up by Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. He said, “Like his fellow presidential candidate [who recently dropped out of the race], Sen. Sam Brownback, Huckabee regards it as his Christian duty to help subvert and liberalize U.S. immigration laws. Together, they embrace the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens.”

Ann Coulter agrees: “On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Huckabee has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, ‘I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.’

“Toward that end, when an Arkansas legislator introduced a bill that would prevent illegal aliens from voting and receiving state benefits, Huckabee denounced the bill, saying it would rile up ‘those who are racist and bigots.’

“He also made the insane point that companies such as Toyota would not invest in Arkansas if the state didn’t allow non-citizens to vote, because it would ’send the message that, essentially, “If you don’t look like us, talk like us and speak like us, we don’t want you.”‘

“Like all the (other) Democratic candidates for President, he supports a federal law to ban smoking–unless you’re an illegal alien smoking at a Toyota plant.”

A former state lawmaker, Minton also said, that Huckabee was not a “fiscally conservative Republican.” Rather, Huckabee was regarded as just another liberal “tax and spender” in fiscal matters. This is in direct opposition to Huckabee’s boast of “90 tax cuts during his tenure.” And the facts seem to validate Minton, not Huckabee.

An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration report showed a “net tax increase of $505 million, a figure adjusted for inflation and economic growth” on Huckabee’s watch.

That Huckabee is a liberal “tax and spender” is also affirmed by Tom Roeser. According to Roeser, “[Huckabee] hiked state spending 65.3%, from 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the ‘Club for Growth’ to call him a liberal in disguise . . .”

Roeser also points out that “The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over 20% and Arkansas’ general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion.”

Furthermore, according to the Washington Times, “Until recently, he [Huckabee] had refused to sign the famous no-tax pledge offered to candidates by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.”

In spite of Huckabee’s proven big-government, big-spending, and pro-amnesty record, however, some Christian conservatives are falling for his conservative rhetoric. It seems that all a Republican candidate has to do is start talking “pro-life” and “pro-marriage” and he or she will gain the support of certain Christian conservatives.

First it was Bob Jones, III endorsing the liberal former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, and now it is Janet Folger endorsing the liberal former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. Why any Christian leader would want to support a man with such a dubious record truly escapes me.

Christians need to beware of Mike Huckabee. He is not a conservative. Even worse, he is not a constitutionalist. He is an opportunist, however. This is demonstrated by the fact that many of his supporters are openly posturing (with Huckabee’s consent, obviously) for an opportunity to run Huckabee as a potential Vice Presidential candidate with either Giuliani or Romney at the top of the ticket.

Let me ask the reader something. How could a principled pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Constitution conservative be willing to run on a ticket with a liberal presidential candidate such as Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney? That’s right, he couldn’t.

I say again, beware of Mike Huckabee!
[http://dhgrassrevolt.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/christians-need-to-beware-of-mike-huckabee-chuck-baldwin/]

Who is Phyllis Schlafly? Who are Ron Paul’s supporters?

Here is one of the best summaries on Phyllis Schlafly, Ron Paul and Paul’s supporters.
Fred

on November 4, 2007 at 1:35 am5 Jim Palmisano
Who is Phyllis Schlafly? What does this self-proclaimed political guru know about anything?

I prefer to read for myself and I tend to understand things fairly well on my own.

So who is she and why would anyone put any credence to her thoughts?

This should be interesting.

Jim Palmisano


on November 22, 2007 at 11:14 pm7 Doug Parris
I really like Ron Paul, myself, but the posts, here, actually illustrate some of the problems he has winning the nomination.

Palmisano (at 5) asks “who is Phyllis Schlafly?” and calls her a “self-proclaimed” political guru. This illustrates the “johnny-come-lately” nature of much of Paul’s support. Mr. Palmisano is obviously very ignorant of the history of the conservative movement and disrespectful of its leaders, the people who have been fighting for many decades for Constitutional Government. Calling her a “self-prclaimed” guru is just dishonest. She has never spent time attempting to elevate herself, but became prominent, probably before Palmisano was born, fighting for what is right, and has never wavered.

Palmisano, touting his own abilities, says, “I prefer to read for myself and I tend to understand things fairly well…” but does not know who the greatest enemy of feminazism in history is.

Painter (at 6) claims that Ron Paul has the “most intense and zealous supporters.” They certainly are zealous. But that has both an upside and a downside. I think most people attribute Paul’s lead in the non-scientific polls to that zeal ~ a small number of Paul supporters mobilizing to jam phone lines or vote often when that is possible. It’s a good strategy, and grassroots action, like Paul has generated, is about all a “second-tier” candidate can do to progress, but when the results don’t equate to similar numbers in scientific polls (that only count one vote from one person), and Paul’s zealous supporters try to cry “conspiracy” it undercuts credibility ~ and makes it easier to ignore both real results and real bias when it does occur -and it occurs often.

As pointed out, Ron Paul scores high among liberals for a Republican, and this is, undoubtedly, a direct result of his opposition to the war. I’ve talked to some of them and it’s the only thing they know about him. These are the people who have been tearing down Constitutional governent for about a hundred years. It undercuts his support among seasoned Constitutionalists. He is also the only Republican Candidate, in all the debates so far, to have been, literally, booed by a Republican Audience. He is right, generally, on the Constitution, but wrong, on some crucial Foreign Policy regarding primeval Islam and wrong in the mind of most Republicans on that issue.

Paul’s positives far outweigh his negatives on the grand scale of substance, but his negatives are very high-profile and seem to me to be unfairly counterbalancing his positives on the grand scale of viability.

But I have to give the title of “the “most intense and zealous supporters” to the members of the People’s Temple who proved the intensity of their zeal for Jim Jones at “Jonestown,” Guyana on Nov. 18, 1978. It’s not always a good thing.

This thread (above) is being posted, by the way, on our mirror-site, REAGANWING.COM. It was put up only as a backup to the actual site in case of emergency. In the future, post at WWW.THEREAGANWING.COM and you will stand less chance of being ignored. This story, at that site is: http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/who-will-phyllis-schlafly-support-for-president/

I prefer Ron Paul over Huckabee, Romney, and McCain, who give no indication of being authentic conservatives and over Giulaini, who gives no indication of trying to even LOOK conservative. I will be excitedly voting for Paul, if and when he wins the GOP nomination.
[http://reaganwing.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/who-will-phyllis-schlafly-support-for-president/]

Phyllis Schlafly is not for Huckabee

Phyllis Schlafly is not for Huckabee

Phyllis Schlafly comments on Huckabee's lack of conservatism

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He [Huckabee] destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."


That's great Phyllis, go ahead and attack an articulate, clear thinking, gutsy, innovative and solidly EVANGELICAL Candidate! And who do you suggest we vote for???
Giuliani? Yeah right, Thompson? Are you kidding me? Romney? Never!
McCain? I don't think so... So come on Phyllis who? What positive alternative can you offer, or do you just like to throw rocks?
Mike Huckabee lowered taxes many times during his tenure. Check the record, a lot of the "tax hikes" were voter (yes the citizens
of Arkansas Phyllis) mandates that passed by a wide margin. Mike Huckabee was Governor for TEN years and, OMIGOSH Phyllis, that took an awful lot of backing from, Gulp!, Arkansas REPUBLICANS.
I say Go Mike. It's nice to have a candidate that we can be excited about!

By Michael Patterson, At 10:54 PM
[http://www.eagleforum.org/blog/2007/10/phyllis-schlafly-on-huckabee.html]

Sky Rocketing Huckabee Appears Ready to Win Iowa and Beat Hillary

Sky Rocketing Huckabee Appears Ready to Win Iowa and Beat Hillary


http://www.lifenews.com/nat3489.html

Hillary Clinton Says She Can Beat GOP, But New Poll Shows Republican Sweep

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Hillary Clinton campaigned in Iowa over the weekend and claimed she was the best of the pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidates to take on a Republican nominee next year.

However, a new poll finds Clinton losing nationally to all of the top five Republican presidential hopefuls. "I believe that I have a very good argument that I know more about beating Republicans than anybody else running," Clinton said.

"They've been after me for 15 years, and much to their dismay, I'm still standing." "I'm leading in all the polls, I'm beating them in state after state after state," she contended. "I think they have looked at the field and figured out who can best beat the Republicans."

However, a new survey released Monday by the Zogby polling firm finds Clinton trailing all of the top five Republican candidates, four of whom are campaigning on a pro-life position.

The Zogby International poll found former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee doing the best against Clinton. Thompson leads her 44-40 and Huckabee leads 44-39. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney leads Clinton by a 43 percent to 40 percent margin while Senator John McCain is ahead 42 to 38 percent and even pro-abortion ex-mayor Rudy Giuliani leads 43-40 percent.

More about polls and whether Clinton is or isn't ahead of Republicans

A poll we wrote about yesterday -- Zogby Interactive's online survey of 9,150 "likely voters," has gotten some attention today from Drudge and other sites with similar political leanings. The angle -- that the survey reportedly shows Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton trailing the Republican contenders in head-to-head matchups -- has caught the sites' eyes.

We noted that the methodology raises some concerns among polling experts, because the pool of respondents came from folks who signed up online to be included in Zogby's interactive surveys. That raises questions about how random and truly representative the survey group is.

Gallup has some new head-to-head matchup results from its latest national survey -- which in theory avoids the problem of a "self-selected" pool because respondents are called at random. Gallup's numbers show Clinton's lead either unchanged or slightly wider against four of the GOP's top contenders (Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson). Democratic Sen. Barack Obama is tied with Giuliani in Gallup's latest survey. Obama has a slight advantage over McCain. He has wide leads over Romney and Thompson.[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/polls/index.html]




New poll in Iowa has Huckabee campaign crowing
"RASMUSSEN REPORTS POLL: HUCKABEE 'VIRTUALLY TIED' FOR SECOND IN IOWA , CLOSING ON ROMNEY."

That's the booming headline from a release sent out in the wee hours of this morning by the presidential campaign of Republican Mike Huckabee.

The news is that the first poll done in Iowa by Rasmussen Reports, which collects its information via automated phone calls, shows the Republican race there lining up this way:

• Mitt Romney, 25%.
• Fred Thompson, 19%.
• Huckabee, 18%.
• Rudy Giuliani, 13%.
• Sen. John McCain, 6%.
• Everybody else: 3% or less.
[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/polls/index.html

Is Fred Thompson Pro-life?

Is Fred Thompson Pro-life?

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58902

WorldNetDaily

The Stephen Douglas of the 2008 race

By Jill Stanek

November 28, 2007

A week before the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson, I blogged he had disqualified himself from my list of presidential primary picks following his Nov. 4 interview on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert.

During those moments, Thompson revealed he's in the same death camp as Rudy Giuliani, just with more exceptions.

Between that interview and one on Nov. 18 on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, NRLC endorsed Thompson and clearly tried to tutor him.

But it failed. Thompson unsuccessfully tried to pull one of three coffin nails he'd hammered two weeks prior, while he pounded another harder. I was left more curious than before about NRLC's decision.

Nail 1

Thompson is counterproductively fixated on nonexistent state laws that would send girls and women to jail who abort. There never have been such laws, and there never will be. His insistence on suggesting this abortion industry scare tactic, while maintaining he doesn't want to discuss hypotheticals, only puts thoughts in people's minds that ought not to be. Thompson needs to just shut up about that.

This was Thompson's disconcerting response on "Meet the Press" after Russert said, "I have 10 different statements from you saying that you would not ban abortion, it's a woman's right and you would not ban it in the first trimester":

… People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law.

Would Thompson ban first trimester abortions? Not sure. Here was Thompson's slightly-less-but-still-cluttered response on "This Week":

I think, number one, that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. We need to remember what the status was before Roe vs. Wade ... it goes back to the states. ... Most of the laws now outlaw the doctors who perform these things. They don't criminalize young girls. So we really need to examine what the state law is and what it would be, and it's hard to do hypotheticals in great detail.

Nail 2

Thompson is clear that the question of abortion legalization should be a state issue, putting him in opposition to the Republican platform that supports a constitutional human life amendment.

While Thompson says he would not thwart the platform, the more important issue is his unconscionable position that despite believing human life begins at conception, he thinks states should be free to kill those humans.

Hadley Arkes recently wrote in First Things of the similarities between Stephen Douglas' pro-slavery position and Giuliani's pro-abortion position, which is identical to Thompson's except to disagree which governmental entity should control its legality:

Douglas ... concluded … people should be free in the separate territories to vote slavery up or down. But, as Lincoln pointed out, he had indeed reached a moral judgment. If he had regarded slavery as a wrong – as Douglas had regarded polygamy – he would have understood that a wrong is that which no one ought to do, that anyone may be properly restrained from doing. To say slavery is something legitimate to choose is to say that slavery stood in the class of things "not wrong. …"

Lincoln said that Douglas was … teaching a policy of "indifference" – that slavery just did not matter enough to stir such divisions in the country.

Nail 3

Likewise, Thompson thinks states should be free to legalize killing the disabled.

Stephanopoulos brought NRLC into the discussion:

David O'Steen of the National Right to Life Committee said one of the reasons they chose you is that you clarified your position on end-of-life issues, families facing the situation like the Terri Schiavo case. He said you clarified that issue for him and you may be doing so publicly. What did you say to them privately that you haven't said publicly? In public you've said this should be an issue for families and the courts but not state and federal governments.

Thompson responded:

… What we talked about in a little more detail is the different kinds of end-of-life issues. ... I don't have a legal position other than it oughta be resolved in a state court system. People have a right to make the laws in their own state to resolve these issues. If families can't get together ... then it should go to the state court mechanism.

I can't fathom how O'Steen was drawn to Thompson by that answer, particularly since the NRLC helped draft the federal law that attempted to intervene in the Schiavo case. Thompson would not have signed NRLC's bill into law.

Clearly, Thompson would stand by if a state were to re-establish slavery. He would stand by if a state legalized the killing of 2-year-olds. His logic on abortion and killing the disabled demand these positions.
The NRLC has just endorsed the Stephen Douglas of our generation.

Is Ron Paul Pro-life?

There are false posts on the Internet saying Ron Paul isn't pro-life. Here are Pauls views on the major issues.

Fred

Ron Paul speaks about the sanctity of life.
“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.” – Ron Paul

While many candidates talk about being pro-life, Ron Paul has taken direct action to restore protection of the unborn.
As a Congressman Ron Paul

• authored legislation HR 1094 that seeks to define life as beginning at conception.

• sponsored HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny, which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, Ron Paul never once considered performing an abortion, nor did he ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.


“Pro-Lifers should support Ron Paul for president.”
-Rep. Barbara Hagan, former Chair, New Hampshire Right to Life Committee






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ron Paul speaks about the Constitution.

Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill.

Constituents have named Ron Paul “The Champion of the Constitution” in his congressional district.

“Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.” – Ron Paul






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ron Paul speaks about border security.

"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked." – Ron Paul

Ron’s Six Point Plan:

• Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

• Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

• No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

• No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

• End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

• Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ron Paul speaks about Homeschooling.

...it is reassuring to know that we still have this freedom and this responsibility to our children but we cannot even take that for granted...







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul speaks about taxes.

“By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS and replace them with nothing.” – Congressman Paul 2002

As the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Ron Paul knows a little about Federal monetary policy. Historically, Republicans believe in low taxes and a conservative, balanced budget. Dr. Paul is no exception. But most Republicans today have forgotten that low taxes without a balanced budget are a recipe for inflation, ever-increasing debt, and eventual monetary disaster. Liberals want to raise taxes to support bloated spending programs. Ron Paul would like to decrease taxes and spending, and tackle the root of the problem as well: the Federal Reserve system itself. The Fed is a private bank run by un elected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Ron Paul has:

• never voted to raise taxes.

• repeatedly been named the “Taxpayers Best Friend” in Congress.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ron Paul speaks about economic policy.

When the government finishes spending all the tax money, it borrows. When it has borrowed as much as it can, it simply prints what it "needs." As the money supply increases, the value of each dollar decreases—and prices soar. Ron Paul understands that inflation is not just a problem for the government to solve; it's a problem for the government to avoid creating. We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a method to prioritize our spending, namely the Constitution of the United States.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ron Paul speaks about foreign policy and the war in Iraq.

"...I am pro-life, I put myself in that category.. I think there is a lot of merit to the Christian just war theory.."

[http://www.christiansforronpaul.com/media.htm]

Is Huckabee the Strongest Pro-life Candidate?

Mike Huckabee is the strongest pro-life candidate. Ron Paul is just behind him.

Fred

Mike Huckabee Says He's The Strongest Republican on Abortion Issues

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- When it comes to the Republican presidential candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee insists in a new interview that he is the strongest.

He says that's because none of the other top-tier GOP hopefuls support a human life amendment to the Constitution as he does. While Rudy Giuliani is clearly pro-abortion, the human life amendment has been a stick subject among the leading pro-life Republican candidates.

Huckabee has sought to use it to separate himself from the pack. He points out that both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson support overturning Roe v. Wade but don't go along with the Constitutional amendment. Romney has said it is a long-term goal and Thompson has said he opposes an amendment and has overturning Roe as his top pro-life goal.

Those positions put Huckabee at the top of the list of pro-life candidates, he told the Washington Examiner in a Friday interview. "If abortion is a political issue, and that's all it is, then fine, have 50 versions," Huckabee said. "But if we have determined, as many of us have, that it's a moral issue, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."

You Can’t Dismiss Ron Paul Because of the Internet

Ed Rollins, a longtime conservative operative who worked in the Reagan White House and later became Ross Perot’s campaign manager in 1992, said

“ You can’t dismiss his antiwar vote. You can’t dismiss the power of one man stand­ing up with a powerful message. I’ll tell you, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there’s this un­controllable thing like the Internet. Wash­ington insiders don’t know what to make of it.”




D.C. Establishment Can’t Get A Grip On Ron Paul
By CHRISTOPHER MANION
WASHINGTON, D. C. — Tongues were wagging on both sides of the aisle in Wash­ington last week, as Dr. Ron Paul, the pro­life, pro- Constitution obstetrician who has represented his Texas congressional district for 20 years, pulled off what even the lib­eral Washington Post called a “ stunning achievement.”


Dr. Paul, who has long been treated by the major media either as an inconsequen­tial minor candidate, a “ flake,” or an out­right pariah, broke an Internet record for contributions in a single day when he raised more than $4.2 million in online donations from 40,000 contributors on November 5. The historic news made it impossible for the major media to ignore Dr. Paul’s ac­complishment, even though they have stu­diously ignored him for months. The Wash­ington Post’s story appeared only online. Its politics blogger went for comment to Ed Rollins, a longtime conservative operative who worked in the Reagan White House and later became Ross Perot’s campaign manager in 1992.


“ What he’s done — what his supporters have done — is astonishing,” said Rollins. “ You can’t dismiss his antiwar vote. You can’t dismiss the power of one man stand­ing up with a powerful message. I’ll tell you, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I’ve learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there’s this un­controllable thing like the Internet. Wash­ington insiders don’t know what to make of it.”


In fact, the Internet has been the domi­nant ingredient in Paul’s campaign precisely because it is “uncontrollable.” Ever since Dr. Paul came on the scene, he has been large­ly ignored by the prestige press; he is a “ nonperson” on the left, and intensely re­sented by his fellow GOP presidential can­didates.


The reason is fairly simple: In the past few years, the two major parties have be­come increasingly undistinguishable. They are virtually mirror images of one anoth­er in corruption. Their defiance of fiscal and constitutional discipline has brought about a widespread collapse of public trust in our national government. They are all what Rollins calls “ Washington in­siders.” One cannot expect that crowd to acknowledge, much less to applaud, the only pro- Constitution, anti- establishment candidate who stands up and yells “ stop.” Normally, the tree would fall in the for­est and nobody would hear because the prestige press would not report it. But In­ternet content is not controlled by the es­tablishment. There, untold thousands of web sites and blogs hum with news and opinion that is totally unfiltered and un­censored.


With the Internet, there is no such thing as the “ cutting- room floor.” Quite the contrary: Many influential web sites were set up to challenge the prestige press and to provide a more attractive, less “ establishment” alternative. Rollins is right: The Internet is indeed “ uncontrol­lable.” People write whatever they want to and read whatever web sites they want to. When they find something they like, they send it to their entire e- mail list. If it catches on, it can spread like wildfire, vir­tually without cost. And that accounts for the stunning success of Dr. Paul’s “ power­ful message” there.


Rollins’ admission is telling: “I’ve been in politics for 40 years, and these days every­thing I’ve learned about politics is totally ir­relevant.” He is not kidding, and he is not alone. For the past 40 years, the entire Washington establishment — the politi­cians, the bureaucracy, the media, the lob­byists, the contractors, the agencies — have all been wallowing in one big spe­cial- interest hot tub, simply printing more money when they can’t bill the taxpay­er. This is a closely controlled dance that “ Washington insiders” have perfected and perpetuated, taking every precaution that no outsider will rock the boat. Even George Bush, a self- styled reformer in 2000, became a big spender before long. In fact, in the 27 years since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the nation­al debt has risen from below one trillion dollars to ten trillion dollars. For 19 of those 27 years, there was a Republican in the White House — and surprisingly, most of the rise has taken place during President Bush’s two terms in office. One recent study indicates that Bush is “ the biggest spender since LBJ” — the “ guns and butter” author of the “ Great Society” who was president back when Rollins be­gan his political career 40 years ago.


Why haven’t more of the “ conservative” candidates competing for the GOP nom­ination raised this issue? The fact is, they don’t mention Bush at all. A recent anal­ysis indicates that, while Democratic de­baters have mentioned the president 72 times, the Republicans have mentioned him only twice ( and one was Dr. Paul). And therein lies the dirty little secret of the pri­mary campaign: They can’t attack him, not yet.


David Broder, the “pundit dean” who has long been the weathervane for liberal edi­torial writers across the country, pointed to the elephant in the living room a few weeks back when he recalled Hubert Humphrey’s 1968 campaign. Humphrey waited too long, Broder says, before he would attack LBJ’s record and distance himself from the unpopular president. Had he turned a few months earlier, Broder surmises, he would have done much better in November. Now, Broder teases, when will the Republicans turn on the unpopular Bush? We know they will, he taunts. But when will they?


The answer is simple, of course: Every GOP candidate except Dr. Paul is trying to woo the “ GOP base.” And what is the “ base”? It is the 30% or so of the elector­ate that still supports Bush. Yes, it is a mi­nority of the country, but it is a majority of the GOP, especially among likely primary voters. Broder’s unspoken message is, once the GOP has a clear winner in the pri­maries, that candidate will have much more freedom to criticize the president’s record. His target audience will now be the general electorate, not primary voters.
Of course, Broder ( and the rest of the gang at the Post) wouldn’t give Ron Paul the time of day, so he assumes that the GOP will nominate an establishment can­didate — who will have to woo Bush vot­ers now, but turn on Bush eventually. The prospect of such a candidate advocating “change” and still keeping the Bush “base” on board will require a world- class balanc­ing act, and this GOP field is definitely not world class.


And then there’s Ron Paul. He has been very consistent and clear ( two rare ingredi­ents in this campaign season). Should he win the nomination, he would not have to change his message at all — in fact, he would only strengthen it as he got more opportunities to explain it to a wider audi­ence.


So far, Paul’s audience has been Inter­net- based, and his campaign success re­flects the coming of age of that medium in the political world. In the early 1960s, liberals referred to the grassroots conser­vatives that won Goldwater the 1964 GOP nomination as “ little old ladies in tennis shoes.” Well, move over ladies, and meet the new grassroots powers that the establishment both fears and belittles — the Internet. And meet the sleeping giant — the millions of Americans who are fed up with the lock that the major party establishments have placed on our national political life.


It is interesting to observe that the most strenuous opposition to Dr. Paul’s candi­dacy is not from liberal Democrats, but from the neocons who are currently run­ning the Bush administration’s foreign pol­icy. David Frum, a contributing editor to both The Weekly Standard and Nation­al Review Online, is one of those “ con­servatives of convenience” whose ap­proach to pro- lifers seldom rises above thinly disguised contempt. Like the GOP establishment candidates, the Frum fac­tion needs the votes of the pro- life “ reli­gious right,” of course, but it does noth­ing to further the pro- life cause.


In fact, like many neocons, Frum sup­ports pro- abortion, pro- homosexual Rudy Giuliani. He dismisses Dr. Paul as a fringe candidate along the lines of Howard Dean and Ralph Nader — but he realizes that Ralph Nader made it possible for Gov. George Bush to carry Florida in the 2000 election.


Frum assumes, naturally, that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination: “ Rudy is in no danger of losing Republican prima­ry voters to Ron Paul,” he insists. “ And if ( as I have speculated) Paul mounts an in­dependent candidacy in the general elec­tion, he will draw votes from disaffected Democrats, disappointed in Hillary Clinton’s failure to articulate a more radical antiwar message. As third-party candidates go, Ron Paul is Nader, not Perot.”


Weekly Standard editor William Kristol recently commented that all of the “major” GOP candidates (minus Dr. Paul, of course) suited him fine, because they are all falling over each other to capture the votes of the Americans who still support President Bush and the Iraq War.


In other words, the neocons think that Ron Paul is more a danger to the Demo­crats than the Republicans in the 2008 elec­tions. It brings back memories of 1952, when Eisenhower’s supporters trumpeted that “ Taft can’t win” — and then they had to steal the votes of the pro- Taft Texas del­egation to deliver the nomination to Eisen­hower.
“ Ron Paul can’t win.” “ Ron Paul is on a roll.” Take your pick, and stay tuned.
[The Wanderer (November 15, 2007)]

Is Ron Paul more Pink than Mike Huckabee?

Is Ron Paul more Pink than Mike Huckabee?

It appears that Ron Paul is as pro-life as Mike Huckabee. But is Paul more pink than Huckabee.

Fred

Ron Paul is not a stooge for the Republican Party; Chuck Baldwin, homosexuality and politics
Posted by Gary Shumway under Constitution - U.S. , Ron Paul , Elections , Homosexuality / GLBT , Politics , Chuck Baldwin
No Comments
In Chuck Baldwin’s September 7th column he reiterates the obvious. And the obvious is that the GOP (Republican Party for those in Utah County) is trying to paint itself as the “family values” and even “God’s” Party. Baldwin goes on to show that nothing could be further from the truth. People, you must forget Party when voting, and vote for the person…as long as that person, when elected, will not then simply become a Party stooge.

Take for example Ron Paul. He is a trying to be the presidential candidate for the Republican Party, yet over and over he has shown that he will not kowtow to the Party’s wishes if they go against the Constitution (which is one reason The Party tries to silence him.) If he did, he would not be known as Dr. No, and he would be just another Republican mouthing one thing and voting another.

I have been writing a series herein entitled, “The Ron Paul Record”. The latest of which is post #3 and from which you are linked to the previous posts. I am endeavoring to show that Ron Paul is not a stooge of for the Republican Party, that he certainly has a titanium backbone (metaphorically), and that he is a man of his word - that is, he walks his talk. Try to say that of the other GOP Presidential candidates. Try to say that about the Republican Party!

If you wish to skip Chuck’s column, I have included, near the end of this post, some of Ron Paul’s statements regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. I have included them because Chuck spends a lot of time talking about homosexuality, politics, and the political parties.

Here then is Chuck’s column for September 7th. Compare what he says about the GOP being corrupt vs. Ron Paul’s record. Ron is from Earth, the GOP is from Venis, er, Venus.

The recent bathroom sex scandal involving Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig has become a political hornet’s nest. However, to those who are privy to the real-life goings-on among the political elite in Washington, D.C., this comes as no surprise.

Extracurricular sexual activity in Washington, D.C., is about as uncommon as thunderstorms in the summertime. The element igniting the fires of the media and the public in general, however, is that the Craig scandal involves another Republican legislator and homosexuality.

You see, Karl Rove and Company (along with their willingly gullible Christian pastor accomplices) have convinced rank-and-file conservatives, many of whom are Christians, that the GOP is the “family values” party. Some even go so far as to call it “God’s Party.” Obviously, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, et. al have done much to tarnish this image.

As a pastor for more than three decades, I have witnessed a plethora of sexual failures. Men and women, even Christian men and women, are all weakened with a sinful nature. Some are more vulnerable to certain sins than others, and with a current culture that is awash in sexual promiscuity, temptations of the flesh have never been greater.

The pastor side of me understands the need for redemption and forgiveness. If I was personally acquainted with Senator Craig, I would be more than willing to minister healing to him and his family. Of course, in Senator Craig’s case, he has admitted no wrongdoing and asked for no help. Even God does not help a person who will not ask for it.

That being said, it behooves me to address the underlying problem behind the Larry Craig scandal. The real problem that this scandal unearths is the widespread influence that homosexuality has within the GOP. Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP elephant is not red; it is pink. That is a fact that rank and file conservatives within the GOP either don’t know or don’t want to know. But it is getting harder and harder to keep that fact a secret.

If anyone really wants to learn the facts about how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party, I encourage them to read Alan Stang’s blockbuster new book entitled “Not Holier Than Thou,” which is published by Patton House. Here is Alan’s web site:

http://www.alanstang.com/

Alan was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers. He was a business editor at Prentice-Hall. He is a radio talk show host, and has done stints on the American Freedom Network and the Republic Broadcasting Network. He is the author of several books, as well as hundreds of feature articles in national magazines. His book, “Not Holier Than Thou,” is an in-depth look at how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. It is an eye-opener, to say the least.

Stang notes that as far back as 1989 the Washington Times published a monumental front-page story that began, “A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and US and foreign businessmen with close social ties to Washington’s political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal.”

Remember, that was just the first paragraph, and it appeared not in a liberal newspaper, but in the conservative Washington Times.

Stang also points out numerous homosexual prostitutes that have had free access to the White House under Republican administrations, including the current one. Stang also notes that Karl Rove’s father was a homosexual, a fact that may have contributed to his mother’s suicide.

Obviously, everyone on the planet knows that Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter, Mary Cheney, is a lesbian. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Dick Cheney, Lynne, wrote a lesbian novel entitled “Sisters”?

Stang also reminds readers that President G.W. Bush was “a member of Skull & Bones at Yale, which apparently involves bizarre, secret sex rituals including coffins. He has visited the Bohemian Grove in northern California, the site of other secret sex rituals.”

Should we be surprised, therefore, that despite campaigning as a born again Christian, President Bush has not repealed a single pro-homosexual Executive Order given by President Bill Clinton or that he has appointed as many (if not more) openly gay men to high government positions as did Bill Clinton? The list includes high profile homosexuals such as Paul Cellucci, Michael Guest, Stephen Herbits, Scott Evertz, Mark Dybul, Israel Hernandez, Joseph O’Neill, Arthur James Collingsworth, and on and on. According to Stang, “He [Bush] has given organized sodomy considerable control over the federal government.”

Obviously, homosexuals have not been limited to the Republican White House. As the Times stated, the GOP congressional caucus is also shaded in pink. Remember David Dreier and Mark Foley? And please don’t forget the cross-dressing Republican presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

Remember, too, that it was the Republican Newt Gingrich who came to the defense of homosexual Democratic Congressman Barney Frank when he was discovered running a homosexual prostitution ring out of his apartment. Of course, Newt has a lesbian sister and has often publicly praised homosexuals in Congress for the “courage” they show by running for office.

The list of this kind of nonsense never seems to end. Get Alan Stang’s book, and read it for yourself. You’ll see how Mitt Romney routinely facilitated the homosexual agenda while he was Governor of Massachusetts and how California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger currently does the same thing.

It is no hyperbole to say that the Larry Craig affair is merely the tip of the iceberg–and it is a very big iceberg.

All of this is not to say that homosexualists do not hold sway over the Democrat Party also. They do. The difference is, conservative Christian voters have been thoroughly duped into believing that the Republican Party in general, and President G.W. Bush in particular, are above it all. They are not. They are in it up to their eyeballs.

Sooner or later, conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, and other traditionalists must wake up to the reality that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are immersed in all kinds of corruption. We must clean house! And I mean the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the White House. We cannot depend on the two major parties to police themselves or to be faithful to their duties to the American people. We must begin electing independent men and women to public office. Men and women who have not been bought by big money interests. Men and women who truly understand their constitutional obligations. Men and women who adhere to basic honesty and integrity.

Obviously, we have good men and women running in almost every race. The problem is the media (which has its own problems with integrity) will not give such people a fair hearing. Furthermore, most people (conservative Christians included) have bought into the antiquated “they can’t win” mantra, which precludes them from supporting the really good people who accept the challenge to enter a political race. Accordingly, people victimize themselves through self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the meantime, homosexualists will continue to dominate both major parties and we will continue to be subjected to Larry Craig-type scandals. One would think that, sooner or later, the American people would have enough.

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Note that Baldwin’s opinions regarding homosexuality are his and do not necessarily correspond to mine. In my opinion, what you do in your private life is your business, when you make it public and force it on my life then it becomes my business. The conundrum is that what someone is in private life, rightly or wrongly, often spills over to their public life.

Continuing on with Baldwin’s discussion of homosexuality and politics I offer for your perusal, the following Ron Paul’s statements regarding gay marriage and homosexuality:

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

And:

Congressman Paul’s position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a Federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States’ right.[30] In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of Federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill, but the amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia, and in any event was not present in the final bill.[31]

And:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] … In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
…
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]
…
I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
…
The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.
…
[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

And:

I have not…I’m not as judgmental about that {homosexuality being a sin} probably because of my medical background, so I don’t see it in those simplistic terms; I think it’s a complex issue to decide whether it’s sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s to me too complex to give an answer as simple as that. I believe a lot of people understand it {God saying homosexuality is a sin} that way, but I think everybody’s God’s child too, so I have, you know, trouble with that.

And:

Looking it in protecting the military {homosexuals in the military} if they are going to perform the services, and they are imperfect — because we’re all imperfect and we all sin. If a heterosexual or homosexual sins, that to me is the category of dealing with their own soul. Since we cannot have only perfect people going in the military I want to separate the two because I don’t want to know the heterosexual flaws, nor the homosexual flaws and that’s why I got in some trouble with some of the civil libertarians because I don’t have any problem with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Because I don’t think that, for the practicality of running a military, I’d just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual or homosexual did, and those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and everyone one of us has those imperfections.

[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:V1Tz24hJnjUJ:www.redpills.org/%3Fcat%3D117+Mike+Huckabee+vs.+ron+paul+homosexual&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Greatest Writer since Tolkien

Michael O'Brien is the greatest writer since Tolkien.

His stories take you on a journey like a dream where you forget that you're in a dream. Only you feel the joy or sadness that is like real life reunion or heart break. The wisdom is experienced in his tales.

This is subcreation that equals Homer or Tolkien.

Fred


New novel by Michael D. O'Brien

The Island of the World


The Island of the World is the story of a child born in 1933 into the turbulent world of the Balkans and tracing his life into the third millennium. The central character is Josip Lasta, the son of an impoverished school teacher in a remote village high in the mountains of the Bosnian interior. As the novel begins, World War II is underway and the entire region of Yugoslavia is torn by conflicting factions: German and Italian occupying armies, and the rebel forces that resist them — the fascist Ustashe, Serb nationalist Chetniks, and Communist Partisans. As events gather momentum, hell breaks loose, and the young and the innocent are caught in the path of great evils. Their only remaining strength is their religious faith and their families.

For more than a century, the confused and highly inflammatory history of former Yugoslavia has been the subject of numerous books, many of them rife with revisionist history and propaganda. The peoples of the Balkans live on the border of three worlds: the Islamic, the Orthodox Slavic East, and Catholic Europe, and as such they stand in the path of major world conflicts that are not only geo-political but fundamentally spiritual. This novel cuts to the core question: how does a person retain his identity, indeed his humanity, in absolutely dehumanizing situations?

In the life of the central character, the author demonstrates that this will demand suffering and sacrifice, heroism and even holiness. When he is twelve years old, his entire world is destroyed, and so begins a lifelong Odyssey to find again the faith which the blows of evil have shattered. The plot takes the reader through Josip's youth, his young manhood, life under the Communist regime, hope and loss and unexpected blessings, the growth of his creative powers as a poet, and the ultimate test of his life. Ultimately this novel is about the crucifixion of a soul — and resurrection.

*

"You will not want to put this book down until you finish it, and you will continue to live in it even after you close its covers. This story will change you. It will make you a wiser, better person. Is there any greater, rarer success we can hope for in a mere book than that?"
— Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., Boston College. Author, The Philosophy of Tolkien

“It is difficult to know where to turn for noble enough analogies in speaking of this book. Michael O'Brien has achieved both a seriousness and a delicacy, that is not to be taken lightly. I wonder whether we are going to find Mr. O'Brien's name taking its place along with those of Mauriac and Bernanos before too long?”
— Thomas Howard, author, Dove Descending: A Journey into T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets

"There is a kind of historical novel that may appear less a work of conventional fiction than an acute recollection of intimate personal stories, gathered secretly and then, in contemplative solitude, softly woven together with prophetic insight. When such a weave is spun on the right writerly loom, underthreaded with prayer of a mystical intensity, something far more deeply discerning than typical historical fiction can result. Island of the World offers a rich but unsettling fabric, the lovely and the terrible together, evoking not only the social tragedy and horribly tested piety of 20thC Croatia, but the fragile beauty of holiness in a time of adversity anywhere."
— David Lyle Jeffrey, author, People of the Book

“Michael O'Brien has done it again. Penetrating, incisive, lyrical and startlingly clear and crisp, this is a novel that obliges readers to think, think and think again. Unlike so many of his literary contemporaries, the author has something to say that is not only new but is intensely important. Every writer, teacher, thinker and politician should be obliged to read Michael O’Brien. If they did so, the world would be a far better place.”
— Michael Coren, author, C. S Lewis: The Man Who Created Narnia

“In Michael O’Brien’s new novel we feel the mystery and theology palpitating on every page without ever feeling that the deeper meaning is obstructing the momentum of the plot. The genius of O’Brien is that he does not wear his theological heart on his sleeve but lets its pulse provide the unobtrusive rhythm to which the story dances. This is storytelling at its most sublime”
— Joseph Pearce, author, Literary Converts

“Michael O'Brien's novels always have haunting plots. St. Augustine wrote, ‘You touched me, and I burned for your peace.’ Something burning is found here. Young Josip is told that the Odyssey was written about a man who longed to return home. What is our home, in this island in the world? O’Brien’s words touch us deeply in this work, by lives that seek in their very living that peace for which those who were created to live first in this island of the world are finally destined. ‘In eternity we will know fully.’ Such are O'Brien's words, such are Augustine's words."
— James V. Schall, S.J., Georgetown University. Author, The Order of Things

“ ‘Who are you? Where have you come from? Where are you going?’ Such questions come to our souls with new intensity through this poetic, deep story of crucifixion and resurrection, the most beautiful novel of the last 20 years since Eugenio Corti's The Red Horse. In our journey with his main character, Josip Lasta, we move toward the heart's real home. As with Homer's Ulysses, as with Tolkien's Frodo, we carry our wounds, our losses, our beloved ones and encounter the only thing we truly seek and hope for: the eyes of the One who can heal our wounds, embrace our hearts, save our deepest loves.”
— Dr. Edoardo Rialti, Professor of Literature, Florence, Italy

Very Important Advice on the Pope and Fatima from Author Michael O'Brien

I thought I’d reprint this important advice from one of the great writers of our time.

Dear Fred,

Thank you for your most recent message, with the copies of the correspondence with Fr X.There is a lot of material in it, some of it factual, some of it conjecture, both intertwined with private revelation, ponderings and deep feelings. I share some of those feelings very much.

I read Ezekiel 9 frequently. Like you I grieve over the state of the household of God. I should explain my take on the current state of things. For years I've read a lot of private revelation, and found some of it to be true gold, some of it false, some a mixture of gold and personal opinion.
I am a firm believer in the Fatima message (pure gold).I am also convinced we are in the midst of the worst apostasy in the history of the Church, probably the Great Apostasy. The Spirit of Antichrist which has been present from the beginning is growing power. We may well be (though I don't know for certain) on the brink of the worst persecution in history, perhaps the final one prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

I have no inside track at the Vatican, and I'm certainly no mystic, so the untangling of the large number of conspiracy theories circulating presently (theories about about what is going on in the world and in the Vatican) is for me impossible. I believe that it's impossible for anyone to see it all for what it is, because the ultimate conspirator against mankind and against Christ's Church is Satan.The horrible damage done to the Body of Christ by liberals, by Modernists, and even by so called "moderates" is all around us.

There is no denying this. But we also have to be cautious about a kind of damage to the Bride of Christ that can be done by orthodox men of good will, who love the Church, hate what's being done to it, and are profoundly angry and frightened by what most people don't even see happening.Anger-fear can breed many distortions of our thoughts and our spiritual life. This is the great danger for those who seek to be true disciples.

Conspiracy theory has an inbuilt auto-confirmation dynamic. Because a conspiracy by its very nature is a web of deceptions, one can accuse it of anything, find ample circumstantial evidence to prove it's true, and no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince one otherwise. One "knows"--one has the key to the evil plans of the enemy. This is intoxicating stuff both psychologically and spiritually. It is also a kind of Gnosticism in Christian form (a contradiction in terms).

The way through the mess is precisely what it has always been: the path to sainthood. We are all called to be saints. This means absolute discipleship of Christ, total conformity to Him on every level. Availing ourselves of all the graces, especially the Sacraments, Consecration to our Lady, docility to the Holy Spirit, and radical self-honesty.

The primary call of Catholics at this point in the growing darkness of our times is to be faithful to our duties according to our vocation in life (This is what our Lady of Fatima told Sr. Lucia in later years). Also to prayer, fasting, sacrifice. And obedience and trust in the Vicar of Christ. He may not solve the vast number of interior and exterior crises confronting the Church in the way you or I might. But he is Christ's anointed, Our Lady's chosen, and he sees far more than we do.Added to our faithfulness to the duties of our state in life (which means that we keep carrying these "ordinary" crosses as Catholics always have), is to offer increased prayer and fasting for the Holy Father, and for the purification and strengthening of the Church.

We have to pray for her now in a way that we have not since the earliest centuries of the Church. To suffer with and for the Church is to suffer with and for the Lord Himself.I have become extremely cautious about "orthodox" speakers who propose that the Holy Father is playing into the hands of globalists, syncretists, and the Antichrist himself. There is an unacknowledged pride in their approach (we know better than the Pope), and an unrecognized spiritual vortex beneath their feet.

Having made a fundamental choice to believe a certain interpretation of an event (for example the consecration of Russia) they feed heavily upon spurious critiques of the Pope, spin many theories upon circumstantial evidence that become "facts" as they are passed along, etc, etc.

I don't think it's wrong to know about what people in these circles are saying, but we must read it with much caution and some holy water. It is precisely through a distortion of the good that Satan seduces the good people. He won't get them through grave sin or error, but he will subtly entrap them in a false concept of the structure of the world-problem and the current state of the Church. He will especially sow discouragement and lack of trust in the coming Triumph of Our lady. When one has lost confidence, there is a consequent turning inward, cyclical thinking, relying more and more on one's own strengths. A siege mentality results. This way of looking at reality becomes increasingly prone to every rumor or false accusation.

In an era dominated by an atmosphere of falsehood that seems to grow everywhere, nothing and no one will seem trustworthy, according to this state of mind. And in the end, one becomes ripe fruit for the devil.We will drive ourselves mad trying to sort it all out, get to the bottom of it, find a "solution."

Far better to cling to our Lord Jesus on the Cross, and let Him live within us and through us as we live in Him and through Him. That's the true solution.

I didn't mean to write such a long response here. I hope I haven't said too much or too little. The problem with email is that it's too easy to read masses of material without really knowing a speaker's context, his heart, his soul, his mind.But I think you know.

May you be blessed and consoled, strengthened and guided by Christ our Savior always.

In the two Hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Michael O'Brien

On 17-Sep-04, at 11:11 PM, fred martinez wrote:

Dear Michael,

I have been and will continue to pray for Pope John Paul II, the next pope and the Cardinals who will elect him. You and your important work are also in my prayers. If you get a chance please read the info below on Fatima. I've only asked one other person to look at it because I only want persons who are strong in the faith to look at it and there are a lot of big names involved. Please do not share this with anyone else. Please give me your take on it.

Thank you,

Fred

The Spiritual Life is a Love Affair

Father Edward Warren recently past on to his reward. His kindness and joy will be greatly missed by me and everyone who knew him. He was one of the true saints I've meet in my life. I did the interview below a few years back for the San Francisco Faith.

In the interview I asked: "What was your happiest time in the priesthood?"

He answered: "It isn't over yet. So, there might still be happier times. It might be when you are allowed to die and be with God."

Father Warren please pray that I can be as happy as you are now.



Fr. Warren was an assistant dean for 25 years at Santa Clara University. Since retiring in 1988, he does volunteer work at parishes throughout the Bay Area. I met Father Warren in the mid 1970s. He picked me up while I was hitchhiking in San Jose. This encounter with Father is one of the factors in God's mysterious providence that helped bring me back to the faith.

Q. How and why did you decide to become a priest?

A. You have not chosen me. I have chosen you, Our Lord said. I thank Our Lord for choosing me for his love. He uses parents and friends for his mysterious choices. I had good religious parents. Also, I went to U. C. Berkeley and belonged to the Newman club. There I got in contact with those who went to Mass everyday for Lent. They wanted me to go every day with them for Lent. This was a new idea for me. I survived. I didn't die. So, I kept going every day after Lent.

This encounter got me going to daily Mass. That's when I meet Monsignor Terrance Nugent who was from Ireland. He said the Jesuits were a good place to go for a retreat. At the time, I had a janitor job following in my father's footsteps -- God bless him for his daily work. So for my vacation, I went to the Jesuit retreat house in Los Altos. There I met Father William Boland. He was a perfect gentleman and scholar. He asked me if I ever thought of being a priest. He said he thought I would be a good priest. I thought I'd like to be like Fr. Boland. I thought exactly like that. My mother worked so I could go to school. God is faithful.

God made it clear that this was my life. It's been a love affair -- a successful marriage with Jesus. The more we know about Jesus, the more we love him. The heart of the matter is that the spiritual life is a love affair.

Q. What is your most difficult experience as a priest?

A. Being fired from a job and being put in another job I liked better. God has a good sense of humor. I was fired from a director position. I was replaced by a person my superior thought would do a better job. I was moved to assistant dean of counseling, psychology and education. I liked it because of its influence. You were dealing with people who influenced people. It was like training generals and colonels instead of privates and sergeants. St. Ignatius thought it good to work with those who influence more people.

Q. What was your happiest time in the priesthood?

A. It isn't over yet. So, there might still be happier times. It might be when you are allowed to die and be with God. But, it was the time when I realized this is my vocation. I'm happy in my work. We are dealing with Divine grace and eternal life. These are important things. We are not dealing in little things.

Ronald Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul

Ronald Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul

Ron Paul was one of only 4 Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for President. He led the Texas delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
- Ronald Reagan

Anti-Ron Brown vs. Pro-Ron Brown

Below are an anti-Ron Brown piece and a pro-Ron Brown article from the Townhall site. The anti-article sounds like a sound bite and the pro-article seems to use reason.

It's hard to get a take on Brown because nobody against him seems willing to debate the guy issue to issue.

Am I the only one to notice this, but doesn't Brown seems like the only presidential candidate who is a real person? The rest of the would be presidents, be they demos or repubs, seem like cartoon characters at best.

I say at best because I like cartoons. Phoney is a better word to describe the impression I get from the rest of presidential candidates.

Fred


Is Ron Paul really so crazy? (townhall)
Townhall.com ^ | 10/23/07 | Jason Wharton


Posted on 10/24/2007 12:03:08 PM PDT by traviskicks


Is Ron Paul crazy for his position on the war and for criticizing our nation's foreign policy? Many believe this to be the case. But, might we be mischaracterizing Ron Paul by over simplifying or clouding the issues? A much closer examination based on facts and sound principles is in order. In the end I will conclude that Ron Paul is indeed crazy. Sorry to spoil it for you.

There are many things in his favor. To answer pressing questions of our time, Ron Paul relies on historical facts many American's are ignorant of. He isn't afraid to reveal clandestine operations and interventions motivated out of our national self-interest or special-interests that have had detrimental results to other peoples in the world.

He is even bold enough to admit there is a tendency on the part of government to cover-up things to maintain a façade that we are always on moral high-ground in the world. Some see in him a rare privilege to have a candidate step forward with a willingness to reveal these inconvenient truths while others choose to characterize him as a “Blame America First” fringe candidate and dismiss the possibility that he could be on to something.

Ron Paul's tendency towards transparency on these matters is at the root of why he is being attacked and marginalized because there is so much denial due to various forms of conditioning of people's opinions. Some people simply can't accept the reality that we are not always angelic and beneficial to others in the world as we were taught in grade school but this is an area where a reality check is definitely in order.

For example, who is it that "radicalized" Islam to fight against the Russians? We did! We created Osama Bin Laden. We created and installed Sadaam Hussein. We have been purposely destabilizing numerous regions and have and are causing all kinds of malice and strife among nations. Could Al Qaeda actually be like Frankenstein’s Monster? Do we really want to tamper so frivolously with the Law of the Harvest as we have been for decades? We deserve to know the facts as a self-governing nation so that We the People can make the best decisions. It’s our responsibility to search them out.

Ron Paul’s popularity is because there are many who are hungry for answers that make sense of all they see going on in the world who don't buy the idea that we are hated because we are rich and free. These people want the truth and are willing to accept the truth of our nation’s imperfections, even if they are unintended consequences of well-meaning actions. Inevitably, this is the crowd who is willing to face up to the reality this implies and to seek to make the world a better place in as peaceful manner as possible. Does this sound insane to you?

Ron Paul’s impeccable record of public and private conduct gives him a very rare position to speak on all matters of his platform without hypocrisy; especially where Constitutional matters are concerned. Coupled with his obvious absence of guile when he speaks he is greatly enlarging the soul of this nation. He is the heart of a much needed revolution to put aside shaping this world through force and control and replacing it with going back to setting a good example and using persuasion and friendship instead, reserving force of arms strictly for self-defense as a last resort only. Is this crazy?

Ron Paul sees Iran as acting in a very logical manner based on what he knows of the history and current events. He recognizes all we are doing to engender strife and conflict and sees how it is coming back to haunt us as countries seek to defend themselves against our policies of aggression. He sees how the continuation and escalation of these failing policies of our past will simply make our national security more threatened. There is an excellent video hosted by TownHall.com where Ron Paul talks about this: Video Link

I am eager to hear other's perspectives and see if I can discern any blind spots or failings in Ron Paul's platform but so far nobody has prevailed against him. Bill O'Reilley’s attempt was miserable because he refused historical facts and valid parallels to be examined to establish a reasoned perspective. Please watch this video: Video Link

There was a post here on TownHall.com by Phil Harris on 10/23/07 where he says that Ron Paul is giving a prescription for disaster but Phil also failed to convince me. In fact, Phil convinced me all the more that Ron Paul's detractors are the ones prescribing the path to disaster. The path Phil promoted is nothing short of an all-out full scale escalation of war with the defined goal to utterly and totally subdue the Islamic people based on the notion that the Islamic people simply want Israel and the USA exterminated from the planet. He promotes the idea that we either annihilate them pre-emptively or they will annihilate us. He leaves no room for any other scenario in his perspective. In either case he promotes there is certain disaster so by his own admission he is the one issuing the prescription of disaster, not Ron Paul.

This kind of over simplification is a brainwashing tactic that tries to get people to think they are helpless and without alternatives while they accuse their opponent of exactly what they themselves are guilty of. Reasoning from a fear-based viewpoint tends to exhibit this kind of contracted and self-accusing thinking and those doing it are knowingly or unknowingly acting as an agent for those who stand to benefit from the war and destruction this mentality will assure. Phil acts as if we are totally powerless to effect real solutions that will avert the death and destruction an all out world conflict would cause. Thanks to having Ron Paul on the stage we get to hear valid alternatives even if they sound crazy to some.

There is a better way but it involves us humbling ourselves as a nation and repenting of our evils we have perpetrated and forgiving the evils that have been perpetrated against us. The world overall will be a much better place by abiding by these principles and trusting in our Creator who gave us these principles with the promise that “eternal life” comes to all who abide by them. This is Ron Paul's platform and it will save this nation, not sacrifice it.

With all the advances in technology we had better evolve as a people before we self-destruct and render our precious planet uninhabitable in our foolish pride and fears born of false assumptions. Could the “eternal life” spoken of in the Bible actually be referring to the set of principles we must collectively live by in order to avoid a conflict to such a point that this planet is rendered unable to accommodate our presence? This question deserves our most serious and sincere consideration. The last person we want in front of "the button" is a myopic fear-based person who is prone to shoot first and ask questions later.

Our current mentality insists that we have to force and sculpt global conditions to stamp out any potential threat pre-emptively as if there is no Creator watching over and protecting this nation. Unfortunately, this is the very mentality that will cause us to become unworthy of divine protection and we will be left to our own strength and devices and we will become considered as “salt that has lost its savor” and we will end up “trodden under the foot of men”. This is universal law in my book.

I implore everyone to set aside some time to do some sincere and humble research into this issue and even make it a matter of prayer/meditation and fasting. I challenge everyone to assure you are not taking this responsibility to chose our Commander in Chief lightly. I challenge all to step up and articulate their position that strikes against the establishment's headlong plunge of our nation into an abyss of death and destruction as Phil, not Ron Paul, is prescribing.

And, as I promised, I do sincerely conclude that yes, Ron Paul is crazy. He is taking on a very powerful group that have patiently endeavored for generations to acquire the positions of power they control and Ron Paul is courageously standing up and giving our nation an opportunity to wake up and keep this nation a free country governed by We the People. The adversary of our freedom is only authorized to sieze the power we willingly lay down. If we don't wisely govern ourselves the default governance imposes a loss of our liberties and we only have ourselves to blame. There is nothing to fear when we seek with all our hearts, might, mind and strength to be responsible and passionate about maintaining our liberties. Darkness cannot abide the light.

This is a very defining moment in our nation's history. All Americans should do a reality check on Ron Paul before dismissing him. We as a nation of self-governance must be willing to stand up and accept the responsibility to be vigilant in preserving our individual liberties and champion those who take the lead, crazy though they are for doing it.
[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915765/posts]

Ron Paul's Prescription for Disaster?
By Phil Harris
Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Send an email to Phil Harris Email It
Print It
Take Action Read Article & Comments (450) Trackbacks Post Your Comments

There is a growing attitude about war and the defense of our nation, stoked by men such as Ron Paul, which proclaims that we have no business doing what we are doing. The claim is that our Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers should prohibit us from engaging in such activities as the war in Iraq. If you argue for the merits of the war, then the charge is made that you cannot possibly respect the Constitution.

The principles of the founders, which they so eloquently enshrined in the Constitution, were never (and I will argue until I am blue in the face) intended to be a prescription for suicide. Despite the rhetoric of "fighting for freedom and democracy for those other people" (the Iraqis), which gets painted over the issue for the world's consumption, the fact remains that we were indeed attacked by a people, on our shores. They don't give a damn about what we did or did not do before (except that we supported the creation of modern day Israel).



Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) speaks at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation's "Defending the American Dream" Summit in Washington, October 5, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO: Paul: Iraq and US foreign policy
VIDEO: Rep. Ron Paul
VIDEO: Paul: Educating Rudy
They despise us because we are here. They despise us, because we are not ever going to submit to Islamic law. They despise us because we do not wish to push the Jews into the Mediterranean. If they were not so heavily engaged on middle-east soil with our troops, the considerable resources of those maniacal thugs would be focused here, and on Israel. They would have been inflicting as much pain and misery as possible, given a free hand to scheme and execute, and I might again remind everyone of the pain and agony that was inflicted on our nation by so few evil men on September 11th, 2001.

I am distressed that in this day and age, when the vastness of oceans has shrunk to a miniscule 6-hour plane ride, and when weapons of mass destruction are no longer measured by how many men a cannon ball can knock over with one shot, that Ron Paul and others believe we should simply duck and cover. These are not grizzly bears, which if left alone will leave us alone. These are evil, lunatic, human beings who have every intention of not leaving us alone, no matter what.

Those men and women, who have paid the price with their lives and bodies, for us, in Iraq and elsewhere, have not done so in vain. I believe from the bottom of my heart that without their incredible skill, hard work, and bravery, we would already have suffered more (and perhaps worse) attacks.

Yes, to put it ever so crudely.... War Sucks! It smells to high-heaven that we have to spend our nation's treasure in currency and blood. However, the alternative is to simply lie down in the middle of the freeway, cross our fingers and pray that we don't get run over by a Mack truck. That, in my humble opinion, is a clearly written prescription for disaster.


Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.
[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhilHarris/2007/10/23/ron_pauls_prescription_for_disaster]

Ron Paul Reminds me of Ronald Reagan

Ron Paul Reminds me of Ronald Reagan

I'm starting to to like Ron Paul. He reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

Fred

Ron Paul: Republicans need Reagan's courage Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday May 15, 2007

Long-shot Republican candidate Ron Paul said the current slate of candidates need the "courage" of former President Ronald Reagan to be able to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Texas Congressman, who has become an internet favorite but does not register much support in polls, said the Middle East is too unstable a region in which to maintain an indefinite US military presence. Paul compared the current "quagmire" in Iraq to military involvement in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

"We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan," Paul said, explaining the former president initially vowed not to withdraw US Marines who were attacked in October 1983 in Beirut while serving as part of a multinational peacekeeping force. Reagan withdrew the troops in February of the following year.

Paul outlined his initial oppositions to the war in Iraq and his warnings that the war would become a quagmire like Vietnam. He said the war has shrunk the Republican base and touted his plan to end the war.
[http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_Republicans_need_Reagans_courage_0515.html]

"Giuliani is pro-homosexual to the max"

A Rudy Giuliani letter showing his support of homosexuality

From: Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com

How can we as values voters possibly consider voting for Giuliani?

http://www.stonewallvets.org/RudyGiuliani.htm
A photocopy of the following transcribed letter is at the above link, along with more letters and other material showing that Giuliani is pro-homosexual to the max.

Donna Garner

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 25, 2002

STONEWALL Veterans' Association
Williamson L. Henderson, Director
70-A Greenwich Avenue, Suite 120
New York, New York 10011

Dear Friends:

I wish to extend my warmest congratulations to you on the occasion of the 33rd anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion. The work of the STONEWALL Veterans' Association keeps the spirit of the rebellion alive. The Rebellion was a triumph at a time when the struggle for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Civil Rights was just beginning.

Over the past several decades, S.V.A. has preserved the spirit of the original rebellion and continues to work tirelessly for the cause of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Human Rights in general. Your educational program is exceptional in helping others to learn about the cause, the history and to fight prejudice.

Again, I would like to extend my congratulations and commend you on a job well done.

Sincerely,
Rudolph W. Giuliani



_______________________________________________


To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank:

drfrank@abortiontruths.net

Thank you.

Boycott Pat Robertson

Evangelicals Boycott Pat Robertson

BUENA PARK, Calif., Nov. 11 /Christian Newswire/ -- Former 2nd Vice President of the 15 Million strong Southern Baptist Convention said he is calling his Church, First Southern Baptist of Buena Park and all Evangelicals to boycott CBN and The 700 Club, since Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President.

Drake said there is a special nationwide prayer meeting daily to pray that Robertson will "repent and return to his first love" especially concerning the unborn and the homosexual agenda in America. The Daily Telephone Conference call can be joined at 8:00 am ET 1-605-772-3900 access code 399430#

There are several suggestions on the Boycott:

Call CBN Switchboard 1-757-226-7000 or their 24- hour Prayer Line 1-800-759-0700 and order line 1- 805-549-2500 and let them know you are boycotting until Mr. Robertson repents and returns.

List your name as an individual or your organization in support of the boycott, daily on the "Wiley Drake Show" Crusade Radio at 12:00 noon Monday through Thursday on-the-air call-in number 1- 800-839-3048. To listen in go to www.crusaderadio.com and click on listen live.

Call in and pray with others about this situation 1- 605-772-3900-access code 399430# Pray that Evangelicals and value voters will have the nerve to STAND.

Let CBN and the 700 Club know that you will provide no support.

Send your support to other pro-life and pro-family ministries.

Pastor Drake says, please ask all Evangelicals and value voters to support the boycott.

Remember . . .

1 Peter 4:17 "For the time is that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if first at us, what shall the end of them that obey not the gospel of God."

Pray for God's mercy.


Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Wiley Drake, 714-865-8132






www.crusaderadio.com




Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer



This email was sent to mrtnzfred@aol.com, by newsdesk@christiannewswire.com
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Christian Communication Network | 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington | DC | 20006

"Don't think it's a standard romance with a standard ending because [Bella is] very different."

Hurry to see Bella! It is a great story and a good story - those don't always go together! It's great because of the dramatic events that the characters go through, and it's good because it shows you how things should be. Don't think it's a standard romance with a standard ending because it's very different. You really won't see it coming - I didn't.

It is so powerful that several women who saw the movie immediately decided not to have a planned abortion.

You really have to hurry because it might only be in town for a week. It has won numerous awards but Hollywood won't distribute it because of its prolife message. A grass-roots network of volunteers is distributing it, so catch it while you can.

Here's how to find a theater: www.bellathemovie.com

Why not to go:
Violence--a car accident has a brief flash of blood.
Language--one rude word is said instead of "that stinks."
Abortion--they discuss it but you don't see it.
Relationships--a man truly supports a woman as a person, instead of exploiting her vulnerability. They hug, that's all.
Single parenthood--BEFORE the movie begins, a woman gets pregnant and her boyfriend abandons her. He is not in the movie at all.
Choppy style--it's not as changeable as a music video, but it's not traditional film editing sometimes. My 18-year-old daughter loved it. I got a little tired of switching scenes, but at the end all the pieces of the story came together. The ending was perfectly unexpected and unexpectedly perfect.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
We send out emails on pro-life and Catholic issues a few times a year.
You may be a friend of a friend, because we probably got your
name from a similar email that was sent to us and to you.

If you want us to stop sending you emails
just reply with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

If you know someone else who would like this information, let us know.

Jerry & Colbe Mazzarella

"Peace, say [Our Lady of America], will be restored to America once the nation." embraces purity.

Our Lady of America

Purity Torchbearers of the Queen

Richard Salbato 11-09-2007

Some say it will take a miracle to turn America around to purity. America is known throughout the world, especially in developing nations, as a beacon of impurity. Since the 1960s Hollywood has produced and exported pornography, both subtle and explicit, around the globe.

However, just prior to America's descent into the sexually quagmire of the 1960's, a nun in Rome City, Indiana began receiving messages from heaven; messages from "Our Lady of America." From the start, those messages called for purity. The first words that Sister Mary Ephrem (Mildred Neuzil) heard from the Lady on September 26, 1956 were:

"I am Our Lady of America. I desire that my children honor me, especially by the purity of their lives."

Essentially, the messages teach that purity in love is pleasing to Jesus and call for reformation of lives regarding purity, a change that is impossible without great love for God. They also warn that if reformation does not occur there will be great suffering.

In what some today call a prophetic warning, given its timing in relation to the moral destruction of the sexual revolution, Sister Mary Ephrem recorded these words in September 1957:

"My beloved daughter, what I am about to tell you concerns in a particular way my children in America. Unless they do penance by mortification and self-denial and thus reform their lives, God will visit them with punishments hitherto unknown to them."

Peace, say the messages, will be restored to America once the nation embraces purity.

"My child, there will be peace, as has been promised, but not until my children are purified and cleansed from defilement, and clothed thus with the white garment of grace, are made ready to receive this peace, so long promised and so long held back because of the sins of men."

(This peace was promised at Fatima in 1917)

The challenge of responding to the messages from heaven does not rest with the faithful alone. The bishops of America have a role to play as well. "Our Lady of America" asked that a statue in her honor be placed in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Church Approval

Devotion to the Mother of God under the title of "Our Lady of America" was approved in 1963 by former Archbishop of Cincinatti, OH, the late Paul Francis Leibold. And since then, many other bishops have taken part publicly in the devotion.

The most recent bishop to take up the cause is St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, one of the leading bishops in the fight for the culture of life in the United States. On May 31 of this year, Archbishop Burke, a renowned canon lawyer, issued a letter of approval about devotion to "Our Lady of America". The Archbishop of St. Louis sent a copy of his letter to all bishops in the United States.

During the month of August, 2007, the statue of Our Lady of America was on display at the Basilica of St. Louis.
(See Archbishop Burke's letter: http://www.ourladyofamerica.com/pdf/OpinionLetter-May-2007.p... )

WASHINGTON, DC, August 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com)



History and Message

Sister Mary Ephrem died in 2000, and the sole living member of her convent in Ohio. Sister Mary Joseph Therese, had this to say of purity and for her hopes once the statue is placed in the National Shrine.

"We encourage any priest or Catholic youth leader to ask the young people to carry this message of purity," she said on August 10. "After the Bishops of the United States have that procession, and place into the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the statue of Our Lady of America, holding out the lily of purity, then a formal program will go forward to enlist many, many, young people as 'Torchbearers of The Queen.' "

Sister Mary Joseph Therese said that once the statue is enshrined in the National Shrine in Washington, and the call to purity heeded, great graces from heaven are expected to flow through America.

The messages said that the National Shrine would become "a place of wonders." If heaven's wishes are followed, said Sister Mary Ephrem "greater miracles than those granted at Lourdes and Fatima would be granted here in America, the United States in particular."

Lourdes, France and Fatima, Portugal are known world wide as sites of miraculous physical healings. Numerous medically unexplainable healings have taken place at those locations where the Mother of Christ is said to have appeared.

However, the miracles destined for America are to be not "miracles of the body, but of the soul." Considering Hollywood's current state, one such miracle could be the remaking of America into a beacon of purity for the world.

That sounds very much like a possibility, at least according to the messages.

According to Sister Mary Ephrem's messages, heaven seems to have America in mind for a particular role in spreading purity. "My child, I entrust you with this message that you must make known to my children in America. I wish it to be the country dedicated to my purity . . . I desire, through my children of America, to further the cause of faith and purity among peoples and nations."

To learn more visit:
http://www.ourladyofamerica.com

Purity Torchbearers of the Queen

We American Catholics must start a movement among the young and the old, a real organized movement called “Purity Torchbearers of the Queen” and I am more than willing to help in this movement. We can lead the world and even save the world. Just American Catholics alone, one of the largest blocks of voters in America and the world, could save not only America but the world. Convert the almost hundred million American Catholics to the cause of purity and then spread that thoughout the world. We can be a light of purity to the world. We may not be an impure society but we are one of the best societies when it comes to faith. I know, because I have been in 34 other countries, some of which have churches on every block with no one attending Mass.

Why America

America is facing this life-and-death challenge because of the Western world's demographic collapse and mass Muslim immigration into Europe, which threatens to turn parts of Europe into majority-Muslim countries by mid-century. Meanwhile, rising European and Islamic anti-Americanism may soon force America to confront the enemies of civilization without help from anyone else.

Much of the Western world will not survive the 21st Century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes -- including many if not most European countries. The New Order in Europe and the world depends on whether America can summon the will to shape at least part of the emerging global picture.

If not, then we will see the end of the American moment and the beginning of the new Dark Ages: the return of much the planet to a primitive state.

Described with wit and wisdom by Mark Steyn, author of “America Alone”:

Why Libya's Qaddafi is probably correct when he says that "there are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquests"
Why the progressive Left can be in favor of Big Government or population control but not both and how that mutual incompatibility is about to plunge Europe into societal collapse
The hidden reason that the problem of Islamic jihad has exploded across the world since 1970
The disquieting implications of the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race or nationality as is commonly claimed in the West; and an explicitly political religion at that
Why the liberal talk of finding the "root causes" of terrorism in the errors and excesses of Western foreign policy is so wrongheaded
How Europe's welfare states are helping to foster the rise of a globalized Islam
Dangerous consequences that are likely to come from manifestations of "cultural sensitivity" -- such as the fact that U.S. guards at Gitmo must handle copies of the Koran only when wearing gloves because the detainees regard infidels as "unclean"
How the terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 along with other events such as the murder of Theo van Gogh were the opening shots of a European civil war
Sobering facts about how advanced civilizational suicide already is in Japan and Russia
How mosques in the West serve as recruiters for the jihad and play an important role in ideological subordination and cell discipline
Why the Spanish government was so eager to appease the jihad terrorists after the Madrid bombings of March 2004
How oil isn't the principal Saudi export, Islamic jihad ideology is -- and our oil money bankrolls its spread
Europe's suicidal multicultural malaise -- and why jihadists understand that the Continent is ripe for the taking in a way that America isn't yet
How the ultimate victory of Islam in America can be avoided not by more government but by less: by government returning to the citizenry the primal responsibilities it has taken from them in the modern era
Suffused with Steyn's trademark wit and piercing insights, this book calls on us to summon the will to fight this great struggle for Western civilization. In America Alone, Mark Steyn provides an enlightening primer on just how bad things are likely to get, and what we must do now to ensure that our children and grandchildren live in the bright light of freedom.

In the mean time I have come across a devotion that could get us started. I consider this a way to prepare ourselves to be worthy of this movement.

http://www.oltiv.org/
THREE HAIL MARYS SHOULD BE SAID IN HONOR OF OUR LADY OF AMERICA.

By thy holy and Immaculate Conception, O Mary,
make my body pure and my soul holy;
preserve me this day [this night] from mortal sin.

One of the greatest means of salvation, and one of the surest signs of predestination, is unquestionably, the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. All the holy doctors of the Church are unanimous in saying with St. Alphonsus Liguori: "A devout servant of Mary shall never perish."

The chief thing is to persevere faithfully until death in this devotion.

Can there be an easier or more adaptable practice for all than the recitation each day of three Ave Marias in honor of the privileges conferred by the Adorable Trinity on the Blessed Virgin?

One of the first to say the three Hail Marys and to recommend them to others was the illustrious St. Anthony of Padua. His special aim in this practice was to honor the spotless Virginity of Mary and to preserve a perfect purity of mind, heart and body in the midst of the dangers of the world. Many, like him, have felt its salutary effects.

Later on, St. Leonard of Port-Maurice, the celebrated missionary, had the three Ave Marias recited morning and evening in honor of Mary Immaculate, to obtain the grace of avoiding all mortal sins during the day or and night; moreover, he promised in a special manner eternal salvation to all those who proved constantly faithful to this practice.

After the example of these two great Franciscan Saints, St. Alphonsus Liguori adopted this pious practice and gave it his most ardent and powerful support. He counseled its use and even imposed it as a penance on those who had not adopted this good habit. The holy Doctor exhorts, in particular, parents, and confessors to watch carefully that children be faithful in reciting each day their three Hail Marys, morning and evening and recommended it to all the devout young or old.

It is this Saint who suggested adding the aspiration after each Hail Mary: "By thy Immaculate Conception, O Mary, make my body pure and my soul holy."

This practice has been revealed to St. Melchtilde with the promise of a good death, if she was faithful to it every day.

[See below.]

It is also written in St. Gertrude's revelations:

"While this Saint sang the Hail Mary, at the matins of the Annunciation, she suddenly saw spring out from the Heart of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, three bright flames which penetrated the Heart of the Holy Virgin." Then she heard the following words:

"After the Power of the Father, the Wisdom of the Son, and the
merciful Tenderness of the Holy Spirit, nothing approaches the
Power, the Wisdom and the merciful Tenderness of Mary."

His Holiness, Benedict XV raised the Confraternity of the Three Hail Marys to an Archconfraternity and accorded it indulgences.

Our Lady requested the daily recitation of three Hail Marys, revealing the following to St. Melchtilde:

"The first Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Father, Whose omnipotence raised my soul so high above every other creature that, after God, I have the greatest power in Heaven and on earth. In the hour of your death I will use that power of God the Father to keep any hostile power from you.

"The second Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Son, Who communicated His inscrutable wisdom to me . . . In the hour of your death I will fill your soul with the light of that wisdom so that all the darkness of ignorance and error will be dispelled.

"The third Hail Mary will be in honor of God the Holy Ghost, Who filled my soul with the sweetness of His love and tenderness and mercy . . . In your last hour I will then change the bitterness of death into Divine sweetness and delight."

PROMISE:
During an apparition to St. Gertrude, the Blessed Mother promised, "To any soul who faithfully prays the Three Hail Marys I will appear at the hour of death in a splendor of beauty so extraordinary that it will the soul with Heavenly consolation."


ACT OF CONSECRATION TO THE BLESSED TRINITY


With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, Daughter of
the Eternal Father, and I consecrate to Thee
my soul with all its faculties.

THE HAIL MARY

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee!
Blessed art Thou among women and blessed is the fruit of
Thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, beloved Mother
of the Son of God, and I consecrate to Thee my body
with all its senses.

Hail Mary, etc.

With all my heart I praise Thee, Most Holy Virgin
above all Angels and Saints in Paradise, beloved Spouse
of the Holy Ghost, and I consecrate to Thee my heart
with all its affections, and beseech Thee to obtain for me from
the Most Holy Trinity all the graces necessary for salvation.

Hail Mary, etc.

PRACTICE: Recite morning and evening the Consecration and Three Hail Marys in honor of the three great privileges of Mary, together with this invocation at the end of each Hail Mary:

By thy holy and Immaculate Conception, O Mary,
make my body pure and my soul holy;
preserve me this day [this night] from mortal sin.

Imprimatur: Feb. 7, 1963
Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York

Pope St. Pius X gave his Apostolic Blessing to this practice.

The devotion was raised to an Archconfraternity by Pope Benedict XV.

This devotion in its present form is from St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

Our Lady the Immaculate Virgin
http://www.oltiv.org/
Our Lady the Immaculate Virgin, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to support Our Lady's request to have her likeness, as Our Lady of America, placed in the National Shrine to The Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. and to support the preservation of the Holy Ground in Rome City, IN where the central messages of Our Lady of America were given and this special devotion began. OLTIV, Inc. claims no affiliation with any other group or website promoting this cause.

Leading the World By The Purity of Our Lives?

This is one of the most frequently asked questions that newcomers to OLA find as one of the most intriguing and pertinent aspects of Our Lady's messages. What defines "purity"? How far does it extend in our lives? Is it just about our actions and interactions or does it go deeper to include our food and nutrition? What about our environment and energy choices?

What are the realistic chances for being successful at achieving "purity" in this day and age?

Let's suspend our faith-based reasoning for a bit while we consider the confluence of current events in the world today:

The world is on a VERY thin edge at the present moment. Pakistan is de-stabilized and currently presents the greatest threat to regional and world peace since WWII. With a nuclear weapons program and a fractured government authority, Pakistan has become the top target for insurgent groups looking to establish a stronger base in the region. If any of them are successful in gaining control of even a portion of these weapons, it is certain they will use them as they have long proclaimed.

The screenwriter's guild is on strike in Hollywood and the media is all upset because some of our television programs have immediately gone to re-runs because nobody is available to write new material. Given what has come out of these writers the past 10 years, THIS IS NOT BAD NEWS! When it comes to "purity", the screenwriter's guild is, quite possibly, the greatest threat to success in achieving "purity" in these United States. The moral decline in what is portrayed on our televisions and movie screens begins with this core group of writers. The producers call the writer's strike "irresponsible". Now, that's the pot calling the kettle black. These are both VERY DANGEROUS GROUPS!

Food is being recalled with greater frequency. E-coli is becoming so prevalent, one begins to wonder if it hasn't been present all along and we are just getting better at detecting it. Our vegetables are losing their nutritional value due to soil depletion. We are bombarded with nutritional supplements from various experts. Meanwhile, obesity levels amongst all our age groups is growing steadily. Our children are the fastest-growing segment and are expected to not live as long as their own parents due to their level of health. This is not "purity" and it cannot be tolerated. "Honey, we're killing the kids!"

Oil and gas prices are shooting up again. China is now using more energy than the USA and world prices are reflecting it. Pollution levels are shooting up too. Whether or not you believe in Al Gore's rhetoric concerning Global Warming, the facts regarding energy use and consumption are indisputable. WE MUST LOOK TO CONSERVE CURRENT USE AND EMPLOY NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES. Turn down your thermostat by 2 degrees and save 10% on your heating bills. Wash your clothes in cold water (let the detergent do the work) and save even more. Plan your errands or ask a neighbor to grab the few items you need from the store. I remember neighbors stopping by when I was young and saying to my parents "I'm going into town. Do you need anything while I'm there?" You don't hear this much anymore.

If one who just arrived on this planet were to examine the confluence of these various dilemmas from an entirely analytical perspective, they would easily discern that earthlings are in a big heap of trouble and their continuance of these same practices would be described as "willful self-destructive behavior". They do not change because they sense no hope. Hope is there, but it lies in working to achieve "purity" as OLA has asked.

With faithful eyes, we can see that OLA's message has come at a time most pertinent. As Fatima gave warning and remedy for the world situation in 1917, so has OLA's Rome City messages given warning and remedy for the current world situation.

We must work to make our lives "pure" on every level, not just on the interior. By striving for "purity" as individuals we will naturally draw others with us as we move through our daily lives. "Purity" may be seen as nonsensical to many, but to others, it is quite attractive and empowering. Do not let the first group distract you from your mission to lead the world by the "purity" of your life. Our survival may depend on it.



Even in the face of growing consent by US Bishops in different parts of these United States, Sylvan Springs is reportedly being told by the local Bishop D'Arcy that it is no longer permissible to offer sacramental services as part of its Friday Night Rosary services. This means no more Mass, Adoration, Benediction, or Reconciliation services for the pilgrims who travel, many times, great distances to come and pray and offer their devotion to this canonically-approved special devotion to Our Blessed Mother under the banner of Our Lady of America.

Oh, well! The prayer group has done well for over six years with no Mass. It WILL continue as Our Lady requested.

We are hopeful that this is only a temporary decree and that Bishop D'Arcy will soon rescind this order so that the faithful pilgrims will again have access to pastoral care while visiting this Holy Ground where Our Lady chose to first present Herself as Our Lady of America during September-November of 1956. Please pray for Bishop D'Arcy and the Friday Night Prayer Group.

Prayer is very important at this time. So are ACTS of faith.

Ask the Bishops to confirm Our Lady's request to be enthroned in the National Shrine.
Care enough to tell others of OLA.
Thank the Bishops for inviting the statue to their diocese.
Show your Bishops that you support this movement by voting with your feet (use the Chicago method: vote early and often) by visiting the beautiful Churches where the Our Lady of America statue is being displayed.

The November Bishop's conference is two weeks away. A quick look at the agenda published on their website (www.nccbuscc.org ) doesn't show any time devoted to confirmation of Our Lady of America. Although much progress has been made in the past 24 months, it is still in its gestational phase and needs more time to mature so the Bishops will become fully aware of this special devotion.

Maybe the Bishops will have time to talk amongst themselves and maybe the statue will be on display again as it was at last year's event. This is a splendid opportunity to continue the momentum that has been achieved in 2007! Pray for the continued success of OLA.

Iran is calling for the complete annihilation of Israel and is proceeding with uranium enrichment.

Turkey is threatening to invade Northern Iraq.

Monks are being killed in Burma for protesting against a military government.

Russia's Putin isn't happy...AGAIN!

Catholic schools are being targeted by extremists...both abroad and right here in the USA.

The top "family" movies and programs in this country are based upon divorce situations and children are given roles whereby they appear to be more adult. In these situations, even the children are perceived as promiscuous.

The southern states are running out of water...FAST!

Lake levels throughout the midwest are dropping.

California is on fire. It may be a looooong time before it it out of trouble.

Experts still suggest the BIG earthquake can happen at any moment.

We are in hurricane season.

Notre Dame football tickets are cheaper than tic-tacs.

In other news, those who came to the Friday Night Rosary on July 27 will remember a young mother who brought her baby in search of Our Lord's healing. Before the mass and rosary, the community gathered around and everyone prayed along with Irv for Our Lady of America's intercession on behalf of this very fragile child. Almost 200 people were gathered around this little baby and his family.

Well, we received a report just last week that this same little baby who was brought to Sylvan Springs for a healing back on July 27 due to a hole in his 8 week old heart is now doing fine. The doctors determined the hole was no longer there (through no efforts on their part). Although they had no real answer as to how this could happen, they determined that the little boy should go home with his young mother and grow up to rides bikes and do all the stuff boys do.

I guess the news isn't all bad!

Pray for peace.

http://www.oltiv.org/

"[C]asting a blind eye to Rudy Giuliani's big-time advocacy of the transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual agenda"

"[C]asting a blind eye to Rudy Giuliani's big-time advocacy of the transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual agenda"

America's Pro-Family Leaders Selling Out Pro-Family Values: Latest Hypocrisy is Pat Robertson's Endorsement of Giuliani

Thomasson: "Pat Robertson is casting a blind eye to Rudy Giuliani's big-time advocacy of the transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual agenda"

Campaign for Children and Families does not support or oppose candidates for public office, and provides the following information solely for educational purposes.

SACRAMENTO, Nov. 7 /Standard Newswire/ -- Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a leading West Coast pro-family organization, condemns the selling out of family values in the U.S. presidential race by national pro-family leaders, such as Pat Robertson, who today endorsed liberal Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.

"Pat Robertson is leading pro-family voters astray by abandoning moral standards for government," said CCF President Randy Thomasson. "This shocking news is a 180-degree turn by the founder of the Christian Coalition. Pat Robertson is casting a blind eye to Rudy Giuliani's big-time advocacy of the transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual agenda -- an intolerant agenda that harms children, religious freedom, parental rights, the institution of marriage, and the Boy Scouts."

It's well known in New York City that former mayor Rudy Giuliani marched in "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" parades, held "lesbian and gay pride breakfasts" at Gracie Mansion, dressed up several times as a woman, led the hijacking of marriage rights at New York City Hall, and personally demeaned marriage by divorcing his first two wives and committing adultery.


Giuliani's homosexual agenda record: www.stonewallvets.org/RudyGiuliani.htm
Giuliani's cross-dressing videos:
1997: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2y1IM17sM
2000: www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

"Pro-family voters in California were fooled by a liberal Republican named Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he's rewarded them by signing a raft of anti-family laws," said Thomasson. "Will Giuliani do the same if he becomes president?"
(See www.savecalifornia.com/getactive/arnoldsrecord.php)

Other national pro-family leaders have endorsed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, despite Romney's consistent support for most of the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, including advocating for homosexual scoutmasters.
(See www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/recor d/)

"It's scandalous how some of America's pro-family leaders have abandoned pro-family voting standards," said Thomasson. "If the pro-family community throws away its values, the pro-family community stands for nothing. And if pro-family voters are willing to get behind any popular Republican, no matter how liberal, would they support Hillary Clinton if she became a Republican? Or would the family values of pro-family leaders suddenly reappear? On moral values, Clinton and Giuliani are nearly identical."


Standard Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Campaign for Children and Families, Agency Contact, 530-405-4095 ext. 2


Campaign for Children and Families




Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer.

Fred Thompson Rejects GOP's Pro-Life Platform Plank

In a message dated 11/6/2007 2:37:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, DrFrank@abortiontruths.net writes:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/POL20071105c.html

Fred Thompson Rejects GOP's Pro-Life Platform Plank

By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief

November 05, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Sunday he does not support the pro-life plank that has been included in the Republican National Platform since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.

"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law."

If abortions are not "criminalized" even for doctors who are paid to perform them, they will remain legal.

The Republican National Platform has included language endorsing a human life amendment since 1976, the first presidential election following the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Since 1984, the year President Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, each quadrennial Republican platform has included the same pro-life language, calling for both a human life amendment and for legislation making clear that the 14th Amendment, which includes the right to equal protection of the law, extends to unborn babies.

On "Meet the Press," Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican "pro-life" plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.

"This," said Russert, "is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: 'We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution. We endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.' Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?"

"No," said Thompson.

"You would not?" said Russert.

"No," said Thompson. "I have always -- and that's been my position the entire time I've been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that.

"Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is -- serves us very, very well. I think that's true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But..."

"Each state would make their own abortion laws?" Russert asked.

"Yeah," said Thompson. "But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling -- going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go."

Thompson told Russert that since he ran for the Senate in 1994, he has changed his mind about whether human life begins at conception.

Back then, he did not know the answer, he said. Now, especially in light of having seen the sonogram of his four-year-old child, he has changed his mind -- and now believes human life does begin at conception.

Still, he does not favor "criminalizing" the taking of a human life through abortion. Russert challenged him on the consistency of this position.

"So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?" said Russert.

"Yes, I, I, I, I do," said Thompson.

"You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?" asked Russert.

"I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially -- you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do.

"It cannot change the way I feel about it morally -- but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind," said Thompson.

In an interview with Fox News Monday morning, Thompson said he's been pro-life all his career -- "and always will be."

Thompson insisted that he's been consistent on the issue, unlike other Republicans.

"Look at what I did for eight years in the United States Senate. I mean, we had votes on federal funding for abortion, we had votes on partial birth abortion, we had votes on the Mexico City policy, we had votes on cloning, we had votes to prohibit people taking young girls across state lines to avoid parental consent laws -- that's what I did. Those are the issues that face the federal government," Thompson said.

"I would have done the same policies as president that I did when I was in the United States Senate, which is one hundred percent pro-life," he said.

"I can't reach into every person to change their hearts and minds in America, but I can certainly make sure where, for example, federal tax dollars go."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200711/CUL20071105a.html

Britain 'No Longer Christian,' Says Influential Liberal Think Tank

By Kevin McCandless
CNSNews.com Correspondent

November 05, 2007

London (CNSNews.com) - It's time for Britain to recognize that it is no longer a Christian nation and should embrace multiculturalism, according to a liberal think-tank favored by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Christmas should be just one of many religious holidays recognized by the government, says a report soon to be released by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

Echoing sentiments heard throughout Britain in recent years, the authors of the report say that the traditional pillars of British identity have now vanished or been greatly weakened.

Church attendance is at historically low levels, the British Empire is gone, the monarchy is far less popular and the Second World War is inexorably slipping into memory.

After interviewing opinion makers and ordinary citizens, the authors say that it's up to the government to create a new and more inclusive national identity, part of which includes honoring the diverse cultures found in Britain.

The authors warn that uncritical promotion of multiculturalism leads to segregation and abuse of human rights, but if it is done correctly, it will help bind the nation closer together.

Governments that discriminate against different cultures undermine their citizens' right to be treated with respect, they say.

The report suggests that cities should build downtown areas that promote better interaction between different groups. The government also should work on getting minorities out into the largely white countryside.

With regards to religion, bishops from the Church of England should no longer sit in the House of Lords and a new constitution could be created to defend "the right of citizens to practice whatever faith they please."

And more recognition should be given to different ethnic groups: "If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas -- and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to -- then public organizations should mark other religious festivals too."

The report also calls for a new national holiday to celebrate "Britishness" and new rituals to link citizens more with the national government.

For example, in years to come, there could be birth ceremonies in which parents and the state agree "to work in partnership to support and bring up" newborn children.

Although the IPPR report has not been officially released yet, lawmakers and reporters were given leaked copies.

Members of the opposition Conservative Party charged that the report amounted to "throwing out" history and "denying the fundamental contribution" that Christianity plays in Britain.

Laura Midgley, a spokeswoman for The Campaign Against Political Correctness, said multiculturalism has been shown not to work and that the government would be wrong to accept it

"They really don't get it," she said. "On the ground it doesn't work."

Compounding the controversy is the fact the IPPR has been strongly linked with the Labor government in recent years.

Nick Pearce, former director of the IPPR, is currently head of public policy at Downing Street. The institute has also reportedly influenced many areas of environmental policy and the incoming national identity card system.

However, Andrew Denham, a politics expert at the University of Nottingham, said the relationship between the IPPR and Brown is not as clear-cut as it's been made out to be.

While the IPPR has certainly been "adjacent" to the government on some issues, he said, not everything put out by the institute has been picked up by the prime minister.

In general, he said, both the media and think tanks themselves were prone to exaggerate the amount of influence they had, and so it was wise to take it all with a grain of salt.According to 2001 census figures, nearly 70 percent in people in England and Wales described their ethnicity as white and their religion as Christian.





_______________________________________________


To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank:

drfrank@abortiontruths.net

Thank you.

Shakespearean Pro-life Hero Begins Abortion Wars

by Robert D. Novak
Abortion Wars
October 25, 2007 02:00 PM EST



WASHINGTON -- National anti-abortion leaders Wednesday put finishing touches on a letter to be sent to all members of Congress urging suspension of more than $300 million in federal funding of Planned Parenthood until a massive criminal case brought in Kansas against the abortion rights organization is settled. That launches an attack against the nation's largest purveyor of "reproductive health care" -- including abortions.


On Oct. 16, Kansas District Judge James F. Vano in suburban Kansas City spent eight hours reviewing a 107-count grand jury indictment against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Inc. and decided there was "probable cause" to proceed. Allegations of unlawful late-term abortions and other abortion-connected crimes were brought by Johnson County District Atty. Phill Kline, a pro-life hero nationally who is viewed as a fanatic by abortion rights advocates. The prosecution alleges violation of state and federal laws and falsification of documents to justify it.


This opens a new front in the endless abortion wars. No change in the status quo had seemed possible for the pro-lifers. The 5 to 4 Supreme Court advantage for abortion is frozen, and a Democratic-controlled Congress will not pass new anti-abortion legislation, much less a constitutional amendment. The offensive against abortion now takes dead aim at Planned Parenthood and attempts to expand a Kansas criminal prosecution into a nationwide assault.


"Bloody Kansas" was the battleground between rebel and loyal forces nearly 150 years ago, and it is now an epicenter of abortion conflict. While polls show Kansas voters 60 percent pro-life, anti-abortion activists call the state "the abortion capital of the world" -- mainly because of Dr. George Tiller. At his Wichita clinic, Tiller is one of the few American doctors still performing late-term abortions.


The struggle has ripped asunder Kansas's dominant Republican Party, with Kline at the heart of it. He won passage of anti-abortion legislation during eight years in the state House of Representatives, before his narrow 2002 election as state attorney general. Kline's vigorous prosecution of alleged abortion offenses made him the principal national target of the abortion industry.


It pumped an estimated $1.5 million into the 2006 campaign for attorney general of Paul Morrison, the pro-choice Republican Johnson County district attorney who turned Democratic to run against Kline. Dr. Tiller personally contributed $121,000 to his ProKanDo PAC, which spent $322,680 in the campaign against Kline. An affiliated non-profit group, Kansans for Consumer Privacy Protection, spent more than $400,000 on "educational mailings" obviously aimed against Kline. Badly outspent, Kline relied on an old-fashioned hand-shaking campaign and was swamped at the polls.


Next occurred a bizarre event worthy of Shakespeare. Since Morrison was elected district attorney as a Republican, under state law his replacement was selected by the GOP's precinct committeemen. They chose Kline. The abortion lobby's campaign against him had made him unelectable to any office, ruling out a full term as district attorney next year. So, with time short, he immediately went to work in his new job.


His 107 charges against Planned Parenthood include allegations of "unlawful late-term abortions," "unlawful failure to determine viability for late-term abortion," "making false information" and "unlawful failure to maintain records." Anti-abortion activists see Kline's prosecution as the springboard for a national campaign. Forty other states have abortion laws similar to the Kansas statute that says abortion is legal only when the fetus cannot live independently outside the mother's womb -- that is, not "viable."


Whether or not enough prosecutors can be found to seek Kline-type indictments around the country, anti-abortion strategists are aiming at Planned Parenthood and its 860 facilities nationwide. Concerned Women for America and other pro-life organizations signed this week's letter to members of Congress asking for suspension of federal funding that amounts to about one-third of the organization's budget: "We urge you to act to ensure that our tax dollars are not subsidizing abortion clinics that perform possibly illegal abortions."


While the Democratic-controlled Congress surely will not defund Planned Parenthood, it will be pressed to fulfill its oversight mission with congressional hearings. The socially conservative Family Research Council Wednesday called for a Justice Department investigation. And Republican presidential candidates -- who proceed gingerly on abortion -- will be called to combat in this war.


To find out more about Robert D. Novak and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.


COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/28858.html]

The Ron Paul Juggernaut

The Ron Paul Juggernaut
By David Knowles
Nov 6th 2007 8:14AM
Filed Under:Republicans, Ron Paul, 2008 President


This morning, a collective gasp of dismay was heard coming from the Republican party candidates for president. The news? Texas congressman Ron Paul has set a new GOP single-day fundraising record. In a 24-hour period Mr. Paul raised $4.2 Million dollars through on-line donations. The astonishing total suddenly has people wondering: Is this guy for real? Though he may not win the Republican nomination, his candidacy can no longer be written off as "the longest of long shots." He's raising top-tier money, and attracting thousands of new supporters every week, in part due to a strong performance on the Tonight Show (see below). Much to the disdain of the GOP establishment, one thing has become certain about Mr. Paul, he will have an effect on the race.


So how did Paul do it? Who are these hordes of internet supporters that he is reaching? Well, according to Reuters they are all around us. A recent survey found that 80% of adults now regularly use the internet. And many of them are impressed with Paul's candor and consistency. Say what you will about the merits of his positions, but he is nothing if not steadfast in his reasoning.

Greg McNeilly had a good post about Mr. Paul's transparent approach to fundraising and spending, and it underlines a central aspect of the Texas congressman's appeal. With "Dr. No," as Paul is known, you know what you're going to get. He's certainly not a flip-flopper.

As to whether abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan, or abolishing the IRS and the Department of Education are good ideas (never mind whether the latter items have a snowball's chance in hell of passing muster in congress) almost seems beside the point. Mr. Paul has become a symbol of revolt for voters tired of politics as usual. This modern day Guy Fawkes is rising in stature faster than any other candidate. Will he play the role of spoiler? Win the nomination out right? Even become president? Yesterday showed that ignoring Ron Paul (Ron Paul George and Ringo, as i like to call him) is not a smart move.
[http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/11/06/the-ron-paul-juggernaut/]

What is Real Love?

The Greek language of the New Testament has three different words for love: agape, philia and eros.

Eros is the love of a person for another person. Its highest form is the attraction of a man for a woman. The symbol of eros is a man and a woman facing each other.

Philia is the love of a group of persons for each other. The city of brotherly love in the East Coast is named after this love. Its highest form is the unity of family members. The symbol of philia is persons side by side.

While eros and philia were widely used before Christ's time, agape was relatively unknown. Agape is the love of God for mankind. Its highest form is the God-man giving His life for enemy and friend. The symbol of agape is the cruxifix. Agapes fulfillment is the resurrection.

"Satan’s most effective and time-tested strategies"

Pullman's Dark Materials
http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=156&Itemid=76

In terms of popularity and themes, the Pullman trilogy is sometimes compared with fantasy books like A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle and the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling. The latter comparison is interesting, because I have recently come across a shift in evaluation of the Potter series offered by a few reviewers, orthodox Christian thinkers who are somewhat more thoughtful, and usually more discerning about neopaganism than is Rowan Williams. They now maintain that Pullman’s novels are so obviously a corrupt mythology and so overtly anti-Christian that by comparison the Potter books, which do not display open or aggressive hostility against Christianity, fall within acceptable parameters of healthy fantasy. This is an easy conclusion to jump to, but a superficial one.

It is one of Satan’s most effective and time-tested strategies in his war against mankind to afflict us with a blatant evil (for example, the dark imagination of authors like Pullman), and then to offer an apparently lesser evil (the murky imagination of authors like J. K. Rowling) as an alternative, even as an antidote to the more blatant evil. Then, we jump hastily for the quick solution, the lesser evil, forgetting that it may be the lesser evil with which Satan wishes to infest the world.

Well-intentioned adults are always asking themselves: “What cultural material can I give to my children, my students, my young parishioners that contains some positive values, will get them reading and make them literate and avoid the worst evils of our times?” A laudable motive, but a flawed solution. The ancient enemy of mankind knows us very, very well. And he knows that only a small minority of people can be seduced directly into overt evil. Yet a majority, it now seems, have been led to just that, in the sense of deriving much pleasure from, and giving tacit approval to, what in real life is overtly evil. They have been charmed and dazzled by incremental mixtures of good and evil, and by the underlying presumption that we shall decide what is good and evil and how the “good” is to overcome the “evil.”

The success of Satan’s strategies depends upon the weaknesses of human nature (which are operative regardless of how simple or how brilliant one may be), especially our ignorance of spiritual warfare and our vulnerability to impressions. Human beings tend to choose the “balanced” approach, the middle zone or point between two opposing poles, the poles of absolute good and an apparent absolute evil. Thus, when we are confused by powerful cultural impressions we can perceive these poles as something other than what they are. Planetary poles shift. Cultural poles also shift, mutate, slide. And the poles in men’s minds are more unstable than these.

The true center is never the exact mid-point between these poles, because when a Pullman appears in the cultural matrix, pushing the poles, a Rowling will suddenly seem (by comparison) to be sane and wise. She will appear to be situated at the reasonable and moderate center, and that is precisely, of course, where reasonable and moderate people want to be. Who among us desires to be the “lunatic fringe” (as Rowling has categorized her Christian critics)? Who among us desires to be a book-burning fundamentalist (as we have been endlessly caricatured by pro-Potter critics)? These warps in the psychology of perception have their source in that abiding problem in the people of God, during both Old and New Testament eras: We keep forgetting. We keep forgetting that culture forms consciousness, and hence conscience, and hence actions. We keep forgetting that we are at war until the end of time. We keep forgetting that the seducer of mankind is the “subtlest of cr! eatures.” We keep forgetting that he is the master impressionist par excellence, a smoke-and-mirrors fallen angel who, through dark materials used with the appearance of light, little by little eases us into a mentality where we find ourselves calling good that which is evil, and evil that which is good. And not really knowing how we got there.

And what further distortion, along with negative consequences, will we see in the years to come as a generation enthralled by Rowling and Pullman becomes more and more dominant? During her recent tour of North America, J. K. Rowling has said several times in interviews, “Christians hate Harry,” and “Christians hate me.” The subliminal message here for the hundreds of millions of young people who identify with Harry and idolize Rowling is: Christians hate you! What will be the long term effects of this kind of propaganda?

Pullman has his tens of millions of young readers. Rowling has her hundreds of millions. But Rowling has played a major role in paving the way for Pullman. Both have pushed and warped the poles in men’s minds. They exercise complementary functions in the corruption of the contemporary imagination, and their differences are in degree not in kind. No one would deny their civil right to write and publish what they write and publish. My point here is, Christians should not be promoting either of them. Why are so many Christian commentators promoting them, especially the Potter series? What is missing in these opinion-shapers’ understanding? What goes wrong when a part of human discernment is inflated to an absolute, overwhelming all other faculties of discernment? Why, moreover, have we become so desperate to find the bits of good floating in a soup of evil? Is it because we are starving for real nourishment?

If we hope to shake off the illusions of corrupt culture, and if we hope to develop an authentic integration of faith and culture, we must first seek the true center, which is above.

Michael D. O’Brien