Have you ever seen a happier looking group of men? Click on the picture for a larger version.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Congratulations, Fathers Armand, Count, Mario, & Paul!
This week the "Fantastic Four" of Saints Peter and Paul Church celebrate their anniversaries of priestly ordination. Here they are left to right, all companions of our dear departed Fr. Malloy: Fr. Armand Oliveri (age 93, ordained July 2, 1950), Fr. Austin Conterno (age 97, ordained June 29, 1948), Fr. Mario Rosso (age 89, ordained June 29, 1949), and Fr. Paul Maniscalco (age 97, ordained July 2,1944).
Congratulations, Excellency!
Our beloved Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone received the pallium today in Rome! Here is His Excellency with His Holiness Pope Francis. How cool! San Francisco's Archbishop receives the pallium from the first Pope named after our city's patron. Francis of Assisi, pray for us!
Friday, June 28, 2013
Perfect: Counterfeit Marriage Advocates Continue to Show Contempt for Rule of Law
We've chronicled how supporters of counterfeit marriage have shown contempt for law at every turn, starting with then-Mayor Gavin Newsom's illegally instructing the county clerk to issue "marriage" licenses. The narcissistic disregard of the common good is psychologically interesting. They continue to prove our point.
From Lisa Leff, writing for the AP:
"A federal appeals court on Friday cleared the way for the state of California to immediately resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a 4 1/2-year freeze.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order saying it has dissolved a stay it imposed on gay marriages while a lawsuit challenging the state's voter-approved ban on such unions worked its way through the courts."
Leff concludes her article (emphasis added):
"Under Supreme Court rules, the losing side in a legal dispute has 25 days to ask the high court to rehear the case. The court said earlier this week that it would not finalize its ruling in the Proposition 8 dispute until after that time had elapsed.It was not immediately clear whether the appeals court's action would be halted by the high court."
Their attitude toward the rule of law may have been best expressed by a commentor to a San Francisco Chronicle blog post on the subject, who wrote:
"Excellent chess move, wait until 4:00pm on a Friday to announce this...and on Pride weekend too. Good luck religious right in trying to find a judge to issue a halt before Monday morning."
Andy Pugno writes (emphasis in original):
This outrageous act of judicial tyranny tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.
Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind. It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.
The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed."
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
"The Common Good of All": The Bishops of God Correct the Court
“Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.
“Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.
“Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense, and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. While the culture has failed in many ways to be marriage-strengthening, this is no reason to give up. Now is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.
“When Jesus taught about the meaning of marriage – the lifelong, exclusive union of husband and wife – he pointed back to “the beginning” of God’s creation of the human person as male and female (see Matthew 19). In the face of the customs and laws of his time, Jesus taught an unpopular truth that everyone could understand. The truth of marriage endures, and we will continue to boldly proclaim it with confidence and charity.
“Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, with renewed purpose we call upon all of our leaders and the people of this good nation to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage: one man, one woman, for life. We also ask for prayers as the Court’s decisions are reviewed and their implications further clarified.”
Fr. Fessio says marriage decisions show a "Stunning Intellectual Decline"
Here are Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ,'s observations about the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions, given to Aleteia.org:
"They are profoundly wrong and wrong-headed decisions. And it is deeply depressing that in each decision a Catholic justice was the swing vote. There is a twofold problem that underlies both decisions:
1) That issues of such fundamental significance for society should be decided by a single, unelected person. That’s what happens when there is a 5-4 decision.
2) That the judges of the Supreme Court who ought to be exemplary for their wisdom as well as their technical knowledge of the law can be completely blind to the obvious: this is not an issue of equality at all. Same sex unions are not in any way equivalent to marital unions.
"Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This is only slightly less outrageously self-contradictory than his famous “mystery” utterance: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” If you can define your own concept of meaning, well, I suppose you can play Alice in Wonderland with any concept you want, including marriage. So at least Justice Kennedy is consistent in his self-contradiction, and this decision is simply a consequence of the earlier principle. However, he even goes farther here and apparently can read hearts, since he claims that the “purpose” is to “disparage and to injure”. So one man sets himself against the wisdom of all recorded history which recognizes the obvious: a marital union can do what no other union can; further it is not only a benefit to the state, but the state cannot exist without it. Giving it special status and protection does not disparage or injure anyone; it simply recognizes an empirical fact that only the willfully blind can fail to see.
"Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chief Justice Roberts said, alluding to the state of California's decision not to defend Proposition 8 in court.” By that principle the Supreme Court should have never made any decisions, since each new decision was a “first time”.
"So we have the sad parody of one Catholic judge being so liberal that even the meaning of meaning isn’t fixed. And another Catholic judge so conservative that he can’t recognize the need for an unprecedented decision when there is an unprecedented set of facts.
"People, myself included, lament the moral decline of America. Without this stunning intellectual decline—where one can claim that an unborn baby is not a human person and that man-to-man copulation is equivalent to marital union—we could not have sunk so low. With this decision we are about to sink even lower. God help us.
"I’m not a prophet. But it is certainly going to make it far more difficult for those who defend marriage.
"[The Church] will call forth saints and scholars who will “shine like the stars in the midst of a wicked and perverse generation”. They will also be humiliated and very likely, in time, persecuted. Welcome to the Brave New World."
"They are profoundly wrong and wrong-headed decisions. And it is deeply depressing that in each decision a Catholic justice was the swing vote. There is a twofold problem that underlies both decisions:
1) That issues of such fundamental significance for society should be decided by a single, unelected person. That’s what happens when there is a 5-4 decision.
2) That the judges of the Supreme Court who ought to be exemplary for their wisdom as well as their technical knowledge of the law can be completely blind to the obvious: this is not an issue of equality at all. Same sex unions are not in any way equivalent to marital unions.
"Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This is only slightly less outrageously self-contradictory than his famous “mystery” utterance: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” If you can define your own concept of meaning, well, I suppose you can play Alice in Wonderland with any concept you want, including marriage. So at least Justice Kennedy is consistent in his self-contradiction, and this decision is simply a consequence of the earlier principle. However, he even goes farther here and apparently can read hearts, since he claims that the “purpose” is to “disparage and to injure”. So one man sets himself against the wisdom of all recorded history which recognizes the obvious: a marital union can do what no other union can; further it is not only a benefit to the state, but the state cannot exist without it. Giving it special status and protection does not disparage or injure anyone; it simply recognizes an empirical fact that only the willfully blind can fail to see.
"Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chief Justice Roberts said, alluding to the state of California's decision not to defend Proposition 8 in court.” By that principle the Supreme Court should have never made any decisions, since each new decision was a “first time”.
"So we have the sad parody of one Catholic judge being so liberal that even the meaning of meaning isn’t fixed. And another Catholic judge so conservative that he can’t recognize the need for an unprecedented decision when there is an unprecedented set of facts.
"People, myself included, lament the moral decline of America. Without this stunning intellectual decline—where one can claim that an unborn baby is not a human person and that man-to-man copulation is equivalent to marital union—we could not have sunk so low. With this decision we are about to sink even lower. God help us.
"I’m not a prophet. But it is certainly going to make it far more difficult for those who defend marriage.
"[The Church] will call forth saints and scholars who will “shine like the stars in the midst of a wicked and perverse generation”. They will also be humiliated and very likely, in time, persecuted. Welcome to the Brave New World."
"An injury the Court now leaves unremedied"
That's Justice Kennedy's take on the Supreme Court's denial of the right of California's voters to have their day in court on Proposition 8. From the beginning of his dissent, in which he was joined by Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Thomas:
The Court’s opinion is correct to state, and the Supreme Court of California was careful to acknowledge, that a proponent’s standing to defend an initiative in federal court is a question of federal law. Proper resolution of the justiciability question requires, in this case, a threshold determination of state law. The state-law question is how California defines and elaborates the status and authority of an initiative’s proponents who seek to intervene in court to defend the initiative after its adoption by the electorate. Those state-law issues have been addressed in a meticulous and unanimous opinion by the Supreme Court of California.
Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State’s interest in defending an enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that this state-defined status and this state-conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency. But the State Supreme Court’s definition of proponents’ powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution.
In my view Article III does not require California, when deciding who may appear in court to defend an initiative on its behalf, to comply with the Restatement of Agency or with this Court’s view of how a State should make its laws or structure its government. The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.
And from his conclusion:
"In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.
In California and the 26 other States that permit initiatives and popular referendums, the people have exercised their own inherent sovereign right to govern themselves. The Court today frustrates that choice by nullifying, for failure to comply with the Restatement of Agency, a State Supreme Court decision holding that state law authorizes an enacted initiative’s proponents to defend the law if and when the State’s usual legal advocates decline to do so. The Court’s opinion fails to abide by precedent and misapplies basic principles of justiciability. Those errors necessitate this respectful dissent."
The Court’s opinion is correct to state, and the Supreme Court of California was careful to acknowledge, that a proponent’s standing to defend an initiative in federal court is a question of federal law. Proper resolution of the justiciability question requires, in this case, a threshold determination of state law. The state-law question is how California defines and elaborates the status and authority of an initiative’s proponents who seek to intervene in court to defend the initiative after its adoption by the electorate. Those state-law issues have been addressed in a meticulous and unanimous opinion by the Supreme Court of California.
Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State’s interest in defending an enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that this state-defined status and this state-conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency. But the State Supreme Court’s definition of proponents’ powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution.
In my view Article III does not require California, when deciding who may appear in court to defend an initiative on its behalf, to comply with the Restatement of Agency or with this Court’s view of how a State should make its laws or structure its government. The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.
And from his conclusion:
"In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government. The California initiative process embodies these principles and has done so for over a century.
In California and the 26 other States that permit initiatives and popular referendums, the people have exercised their own inherent sovereign right to govern themselves. The Court today frustrates that choice by nullifying, for failure to comply with the Restatement of Agency, a State Supreme Court decision holding that state law authorizes an enacted initiative’s proponents to defend the law if and when the State’s usual legal advocates decline to do so. The Court’s opinion fails to abide by precedent and misapplies basic principles of justiciability. Those errors necessitate this respectful dissent."
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
"Heather Has No Daddy" is Just Fine with President Obama
On June 13, marking "Homosexual Pride Month," President Obama hosted two little girls being raised in a household by two women.You can't expect little girls to be familiar with social science data, but that is part of the job description of the President of the United States.
Here is some of the data on children being raised in a household without a father, from a column today at Christian Post, called "From Father Knows Best to Father Doesn't Matter":
"The U.S. Department of Health notes that 63% of youth suicides come from fatherless homes – five times the normal average. The Center for Disease Control notes that 85% of all children who have mental or behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the normal average. The Journal of Family and Culture once noted an over 100% increase in juvenile self-identification as "homosexual" once a father leaves the home. Pediatrics journal noted in 2011 that homosexual teens are five times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual teens. Fatherless teenage girls are 711% more likely to have children as a teen, 53% more likely to marry as a teen, and 92% more likely to get divorced. Over 50% of women in prison came from fatherless homes. Over two-thirds of teens in chemical dependence programs come from fatherless homes. And, according to the National Principals Association, some 71% of high school drop-outs come from fatherless homes."
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Pope Francis’s “Stream of Corruption” Runs through USF
Jesuit Homoactivists Lead Retreat in Spain
On June 6, Pope Francis lamented the existence of what he called “the gay lobby” in the Vatican. The announcement was not really news—the existence of such a mafia had been assumed for some time. Still, Pope Francis statement, especially following other revelations on the same subject around the time of Pope Benedict’s departure, drew much needed attention. But the Holy Father need look no further than his own order of priests, the Society of Jesus, for direct confirmation of what he called the “stream of corruption.”
From June 20-27, 2013 a retreat for men will be held in Spain. The retreat will be led by two Jesuit Priests. It will be held in “…a self-catering retreat/holiday home run by the Jesuits which we will have to ourselves.” A description of the retreat may be found at spanishretreats.org.uk. It is titled “Liberation. A Retreat for Men in Calpe, Costa Blanca, Spain, June 20-27. Led by Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ.” Readers will be quite familiar with Fr. Godfrey. Until September of 2010, Godfrey served as the Executive Director of University Ministry at the Jesuit University of San Francisco. He was demoted from the position of executive director right around the time that California Catholic Daily reported on his long-time association with Patrick Mulcahey. CalCatholic revealed that Mulcahey, whom Godfrey singled out for special praise in the introduction to his book Gays and Grays: the story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church had been keeping a “slave” and was giving workshops on the Master/slave lifestyle. Godfrey still serves as an associate director of Ministry at USF.
The retreat webpage begins with a short description of Godfrey’s work:
On June 6, Pope Francis lamented the existence of what he called “the gay lobby” in the Vatican. The announcement was not really news—the existence of such a mafia had been assumed for some time. Still, Pope Francis statement, especially following other revelations on the same subject around the time of Pope Benedict’s departure, drew much needed attention. But the Holy Father need look no further than his own order of priests, the Society of Jesus, for direct confirmation of what he called the “stream of corruption.”
From June 20-27, 2013 a retreat for men will be held in Spain. The retreat will be led by two Jesuit Priests. It will be held in “…a self-catering retreat/holiday home run by the Jesuits which we will have to ourselves.” A description of the retreat may be found at spanishretreats.org.uk. It is titled “Liberation. A Retreat for Men in Calpe, Costa Blanca, Spain, June 20-27. Led by Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ.” Readers will be quite familiar with Fr. Godfrey. Until September of 2010, Godfrey served as the Executive Director of University Ministry at the Jesuit University of San Francisco. He was demoted from the position of executive director right around the time that California Catholic Daily reported on his long-time association with Patrick Mulcahey. CalCatholic revealed that Mulcahey, whom Godfrey singled out for special praise in the introduction to his book Gays and Grays: the story of the Gay Community at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church had been keeping a “slave” and was giving workshops on the Master/slave lifestyle. Godfrey still serves as an associate director of Ministry at USF.
The retreat webpage begins with a short description of Godfrey’s work:
“Donal is an Irish, Jesuit priest who has been working for the last 6 year in California, USA. He is currently working as a chaplain in the Jesuit University of San Francisco; a job which involves training the Chaplaincy Team in Ignatian Spirituality. Donal is a regular celebrant at the popular Castro Church of Most Holy Redeemer and has been heard leading a service there on Radio 4's Sunday Service. He has written a book on the parish ministry, ‘Gays and Grays." As University chaplain, Donal spends much of his time mentoring students and staff. Donal loves this aspect of his work and has reflected on the task of a effective mentor, particular in relation to work with people who are in some way marginalised such as those who are immigrant or gay.”
The webpage goes on to describes the retreat programme:
The webpage goes on to describes the retreat programme:
“A retreat is a safe place to open yourself to healing the wounds of the past and allow new life and freedom to flood in. Feel nurtured by an accepting retreat community; receive the healing love of God. Learn how to better use your talents for the good. Donal and David (Fr. David Birchall, SJ) will lead the group through prayer, reflections, and sharing to help us better understand and appropriate the inner liberation God desires for each of us as children of God.”
“By taking a look at the interaction between the individual conscience and the teaching authority of the Church and Scripture we shall consider how best we can live our call to exercise the freedom of the Children of God. This will focus specifically on the area of sexuality….Although both retreat leaders are Catholic priests, this retreat is open to men of any Christian denomination or of no church affiliation. We shall be dealing with issues of sexuality and spirituality and so we are open to all regardless of sexual orientation. However, a respect for difference is vital in a retreat that seeks to be a safe place for all however you might describe your faith or sexuality.”
Under the “Making Friends” section, the webpage says:
“By taking a look at the interaction between the individual conscience and the teaching authority of the Church and Scripture we shall consider how best we can live our call to exercise the freedom of the Children of God. This will focus specifically on the area of sexuality….Although both retreat leaders are Catholic priests, this retreat is open to men of any Christian denomination or of no church affiliation. We shall be dealing with issues of sexuality and spirituality and so we are open to all regardless of sexual orientation. However, a respect for difference is vital in a retreat that seeks to be a safe place for all however you might describe your faith or sexuality.”
Under the “Making Friends” section, the webpage says:
“These retreats in Calpe have been running for a number of years and have always been an enjoyable experience with friendly and welcoming groups of people. We have found that there has always been an openness and acceptance of others. You can be yourself in the group sharing your faith and other areas of life such as sexuality.”
There’s a lot of “sexuality” there. The retreat “Programme” also includes “bodywork,” whatever that means. 2013 will not be the first year Fr. Godfrey has led a retreat for the group in Spain. According to a December 6, 2011 post on the British Quest Gay Catholic website Fr. David Birchall (who will assist Godfrey at the retreat) relates that Fr. Godfrey led a similar retreat called Clear as your Conscience on June 13-20, 2012. In the same post, Fr. Birchall also described the retreat’s new Jesuit House location: “After a dalliance with a retreat house in Mallorca run by nuns we have now taken residence in a sea-front house which the group has to itself.” Sounds like the presence of nuns cramped the retreatants’ style.
Fr. Birchall made a bit of news in 2003 when the British Catholic Herald reported on a website he had set up, which was also called Clear as your Conscience. According to the Herald, Fr. Birchall’s website featured a picture of “two adolescent boys kissing full on the mouth.” Fr. Birchall defense of the picture: “It’s not as if they’re naked on it. They’re fully clad folk and, as far as I can gather, they’re over 18.” The website also included links to other sites which “advertised instant access to explicit gay pornography and offered information on locations for homosexual ‘cruising.’” The website’s “reflections” openly repudiated Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Most disturbingly, and directly relevant to the Holy Father's concerns, it offered advice on how best to undermine the Church: “The website encouraged sexually active gays to put themselves forward as candidates for the priesthood, arguing that ‘the place where most influence can be put on an institution is from the inside.’” Following the Herald’s coverage, Fr. David Smolira, then-provincial of the British Jesuits, ordered the site taken down.
Interestingly, the Herald apparently tried to scrub the story from its website. The story appeared on page 3 of the February 21, 2003 issue. The entire third page of the online version of that issue has been removed. But the Herald must have forgotten about the online digitized version of the physical paper, which contained the story, and which can be downloaded.
There’s a lot of “sexuality” there. The retreat “Programme” also includes “bodywork,” whatever that means. 2013 will not be the first year Fr. Godfrey has led a retreat for the group in Spain. According to a December 6, 2011 post on the British Quest Gay Catholic website Fr. David Birchall (who will assist Godfrey at the retreat) relates that Fr. Godfrey led a similar retreat called Clear as your Conscience on June 13-20, 2012. In the same post, Fr. Birchall also described the retreat’s new Jesuit House location: “After a dalliance with a retreat house in Mallorca run by nuns we have now taken residence in a sea-front house which the group has to itself.” Sounds like the presence of nuns cramped the retreatants’ style.
Fr. Birchall made a bit of news in 2003 when the British Catholic Herald reported on a website he had set up, which was also called Clear as your Conscience. According to the Herald, Fr. Birchall’s website featured a picture of “two adolescent boys kissing full on the mouth.” Fr. Birchall defense of the picture: “It’s not as if they’re naked on it. They’re fully clad folk and, as far as I can gather, they’re over 18.” The website also included links to other sites which “advertised instant access to explicit gay pornography and offered information on locations for homosexual ‘cruising.’” The website’s “reflections” openly repudiated Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Most disturbingly, and directly relevant to the Holy Father's concerns, it offered advice on how best to undermine the Church: “The website encouraged sexually active gays to put themselves forward as candidates for the priesthood, arguing that ‘the place where most influence can be put on an institution is from the inside.’” Following the Herald’s coverage, Fr. David Smolira, then-provincial of the British Jesuits, ordered the site taken down.
Interestingly, the Herald apparently tried to scrub the story from its website. The story appeared on page 3 of the February 21, 2003 issue. The entire third page of the online version of that issue has been removed. But the Herald must have forgotten about the online digitized version of the physical paper, which contained the story, and which can be downloaded.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
The freedom to murder a child is "Sacred Ground" for Nancy Pelosi
Our Democratic congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is trumpeting her "Catholicism" again. From LifeSiteNews:
"In response to a question today from a reporter about a late-term abortion ban that is being proposed in Congress, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that the issue of late-term abortion is 'sacred ground' for her.
'As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,' Pelosi said. 'This shouldn't have anything to do with politics.'"
Murder does not have anything to do with politics. The agreement that we are not free to murder another person is one of the preconditions that allows politics to come in to being.
Here, once again, is the open letter to Nancy Pelosi that our dear departed Fr. Malloy wrote in a January 2007 parish bulletin at Saints Peter and Paul:
Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.
The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but your answer to the question are you a conservative Catholic was:
“I think so. I was raised in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics, and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will, and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, then that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.”
That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.
The NARAL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”
Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby's brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.
Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.
Rev. John Malloy, SDB
San Francisco, CA
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
More IRS Attacks on Pro-Life Groups
Yesterday's LifeSiteNews has a recording of a conversation that took place on March 8, 2012, between Ania Joseph, the president of Pro-Life Revolution, a group that ministers to women in crisis pregnancies, and IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan. Pro-Life Revolution was in the process of applying for 501 (c) (3) tax exempt status. This is an IRS Agent talking:
"You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic," she said. "That’s not, that’s not really educational."
“You reach out to woman, [sic] you can’t do that,” Wan says at another point, adding, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else.”
"You have the right to do, your religion told you what’s right. You have a right to, you know, outreach to other people," Wan explains. "But meanwhile, you have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs. You have somebody else come to your door and know you don’t like them. When they come to you, how do you feel?"
"You can’t take all kinds of confrontation activities and also put something on a website and ask people to take action against the abortion clinic," she said. "That’s not, that’s not really educational."
“You reach out to woman, [sic] you can’t do that,” Wan says at another point, adding, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else.”
"You have the right to do, your religion told you what’s right. You have a right to, you know, outreach to other people," Wan explains. "But meanwhile, you have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs. You have somebody else come to your door and know you don’t like them. When they come to you, how do you feel?"
This is not surprising to us in the least. It is part of the totalitarian pattern with which we have all become familiar: Democratic politicians and bureaucrats abusing their power for partisan aims. We described one such attack in our June 7 post about California's Senate Bill 131. (That post was picked up yesterday by California Catholic Daily.) That's what happened with Walter Hoye being sent to jail for peacefully protesting outside an abortion business (the conviction was overturned, but Walter spent 20-some days in prison); that's what's happening with the denial of First Amendment rights to crisis pregnancy centers like First Resort and the Alpha Pregnancy Center in San Francisco. That's what's happening with the IRS all over the country.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Vive la France...and now Estonia Stands for the Family, too!
"The founder of Estonia’s pro-family movement said in an interview with a Polish Catholic television program that the country’s draft law on same-sex marriage will not go forward after his group presented the government with nearly 40,000 signatures defending traditional marriage. Law professor Varro Vooglaid (left) told Polonia Christiana that presentation of the petition from the Estonian Foundation for Defense of Tradition and Family will not allow the homosexualist ideologues to frame the issue in terms of “human rights”.
Last month, the group presented a petition of 38,000 signatures to Estonia’s parliament to oppose all plans that may be put forward to re-define marriage to include same-sex partnerings. This, Vooglaid said, has shown the homosexualist lobby that there is going to be serious and organised opposition to their plans. The petition form was delivered to 580,000 households, in a country with a total population of 1.2 million.
Vooglaid called the petition, the largest in the country’s history since emancipation from the Soviet Union, an 'historic event in Estonian politics'. Homosexualists had become used to having the only voice heard in public, but now, he said, 'We have really managed to change the rules of the game.'”
Friday, June 7, 2013
CA Sex Abuse Bill Ignores Largest Culprit--SB 131 Gives Pass to California Public Schools
Those wondering what Democratic supermajorities in the California Assembly and Senate will mean are finding out. In the June 7 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Valerie Schmalz reported on California’s Senate Bill 131. The bill was authored by Democratic State Senator Jim Beall, (Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s 2011 Legislator of the Year) and openly homosexual Democratic State Senator Ricardo Lara. Mrs. Schmalz’s story began:
“The California state Senate narrowly approved a waiver of the statute of limitations for child sex abuse damage lawsuits – a bill that could have a devastating effect on nonprofits including Catholic Charities and Catholic schools while exempting public employers. The legislation, SB 131, would force private schools to defend claims that may be 40 years old but forbid victims from suing any public school for abuse that may have occurred before 2009, the California Council of Nonprofit Organizations said.
‘To add insult to injury, SB 131 even protects the actual abuser from being sued – the only claims that are revived are against private employers and nonprofit organizations,’ said Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference.”
On May 29, SB 131 passed a Senate floor vote with 21 “ayes” (20 Democrats, 1 Republican); 10 “noes” (9 Republicans, 1 Democrat); and 8 Senators not voting (7 Democrats, 1 Republican). It is now in the Assembly. The bill is opposed by a wide array of California educators, including the California Association of Private School Organizations, the state’s largest consortium of private schools, with one glaring exception. The exception is the group that educates 92% of California’s students, and which has employed by far the largest numbers of sexual abusers of minors in the state of California—California’s public schools. One might be tempted to applaud this as a uniquely virtuous and sacrificial act—Christlike, even-- until one remembers what Schmalz’s article noted: the public schools are specifically exempted from SB 131. This is incomprehensible, if one believes the purpose of SB 131 is the well-being of children. In a 2006 article in National Review Tom Hoopes wrote:
“The California state Senate narrowly approved a waiver of the statute of limitations for child sex abuse damage lawsuits – a bill that could have a devastating effect on nonprofits including Catholic Charities and Catholic schools while exempting public employers. The legislation, SB 131, would force private schools to defend claims that may be 40 years old but forbid victims from suing any public school for abuse that may have occurred before 2009, the California Council of Nonprofit Organizations said.
‘To add insult to injury, SB 131 even protects the actual abuser from being sued – the only claims that are revived are against private employers and nonprofit organizations,’ said Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference.”
On May 29, SB 131 passed a Senate floor vote with 21 “ayes” (20 Democrats, 1 Republican); 10 “noes” (9 Republicans, 1 Democrat); and 8 Senators not voting (7 Democrats, 1 Republican). It is now in the Assembly. The bill is opposed by a wide array of California educators, including the California Association of Private School Organizations, the state’s largest consortium of private schools, with one glaring exception. The exception is the group that educates 92% of California’s students, and which has employed by far the largest numbers of sexual abusers of minors in the state of California—California’s public schools. One might be tempted to applaud this as a uniquely virtuous and sacrificial act—Christlike, even-- until one remembers what Schmalz’s article noted: the public schools are specifically exempted from SB 131. This is incomprehensible, if one believes the purpose of SB 131 is the well-being of children. In a 2006 article in National Review Tom Hoopes wrote:
“In accordance with a requirement of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, in 2002 the Department of Education carried out a study of sexual abuse in the school system. Hofstra University researcher Carol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church. ‘[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?’ she said. ‘The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.’”
The same article noted: “As the National Catholic Register's reporter Wayne Laugesen points out, the federal report said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation — a number that dwarfs the state's entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.” Emphasis added.
Since the bill would exempt the overwhelming majority of both victims and abusers, it can’t be about justice or the safety of children. Hence, one must look elsewhere for the authors’ motivations. And they are not hard to find. For the Democrats, the “Party of Death,” the purpose of the bill is clear: it appeases and strengthens their most powerful constituencies and it weakens their opposition.
By targeting private schools, it will force them to spend money, time, and energy defending themselves rather than educating children. This should please the California Teachers Association, by far the largest political spender in the state and largest donor to the California Democratic party. According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission “The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined”—over $200,000,000 from 2000-2010. Yes, you read that right. The CTA hates private schools. Any drop in the quality of education offered by private schools makes the public schools look less bad by comparison, although it is hard to imagine anything short of a diving bell that could cause private schools to descend to the abysmal level of California’s public schools.
The bill should also please two of the Democrats other major constituencies: the abortion lobby and the homosexual lobby. As noted, the bill’s two authors are members of these lobbies: Jim Beall was Planned Parenthood’s 2011 “Legislator of the Year” and Ricardo Lara is an open homosexual activist. These groups hate the Catholic Church. By weakening Catholic and other religious schools, more children may be forced into the public schools where they can be indoctrinated—by the CTA. The upcoming lawsuits generated by SB 131 would also give these groups a ploy to undercut the moral voice of churches. When the Church offers principled moral arguments against homosexuality or abortion, the non-responsive response will be: “What about the abuse scandal?
Undoubtedly, the proponents of SB 131 will argue they are doing this for the “good of the children.” That is obviously false, and the obvious falseness may be why seven Senate Democrats refused to vote on the bill. How could SB 131 be for “the good of the children” when the overwhelming majority of minor victims of sexual abuse are or were in public schools—the victims and culprits specifically exempted from SB 131? Any law that pretends to have the welfare of victims at heart would not declare the vast majority of the cases to be off limits. That’s like being anti-tobacco and going after cigars or chewing tobacco but exempting cigarettes.
To find the contact information for members of the Assembly, go to assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers
Since the bill would exempt the overwhelming majority of both victims and abusers, it can’t be about justice or the safety of children. Hence, one must look elsewhere for the authors’ motivations. And they are not hard to find. For the Democrats, the “Party of Death,” the purpose of the bill is clear: it appeases and strengthens their most powerful constituencies and it weakens their opposition.
By targeting private schools, it will force them to spend money, time, and energy defending themselves rather than educating children. This should please the California Teachers Association, by far the largest political spender in the state and largest donor to the California Democratic party. According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission “The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined”—over $200,000,000 from 2000-2010. Yes, you read that right. The CTA hates private schools. Any drop in the quality of education offered by private schools makes the public schools look less bad by comparison, although it is hard to imagine anything short of a diving bell that could cause private schools to descend to the abysmal level of California’s public schools.
The bill should also please two of the Democrats other major constituencies: the abortion lobby and the homosexual lobby. As noted, the bill’s two authors are members of these lobbies: Jim Beall was Planned Parenthood’s 2011 “Legislator of the Year” and Ricardo Lara is an open homosexual activist. These groups hate the Catholic Church. By weakening Catholic and other religious schools, more children may be forced into the public schools where they can be indoctrinated—by the CTA. The upcoming lawsuits generated by SB 131 would also give these groups a ploy to undercut the moral voice of churches. When the Church offers principled moral arguments against homosexuality or abortion, the non-responsive response will be: “What about the abuse scandal?
Undoubtedly, the proponents of SB 131 will argue they are doing this for the “good of the children.” That is obviously false, and the obvious falseness may be why seven Senate Democrats refused to vote on the bill. How could SB 131 be for “the good of the children” when the overwhelming majority of minor victims of sexual abuse are or were in public schools—the victims and culprits specifically exempted from SB 131? Any law that pretends to have the welfare of victims at heart would not declare the vast majority of the cases to be off limits. That’s like being anti-tobacco and going after cigars or chewing tobacco but exempting cigarettes.
To find the contact information for members of the Assembly, go to assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Democrats Defend Felonies in name of Counterfeit Marriage--John Eastman Slaps Them Down
We've spoken before about the well known phenomenon: when you attempt to impose nonreality (such as counterfeit "marriage") on society it leads to totalitarianism. That's because the presence of truth is a constant threat, a matter of life and death, to those imposing the nonreality. So they must always shut down discussion.
NOM Chairman of the Board John Eastman spoke for tens of millions of Americans when he slapped down Democratic Congressmem who basically defended the IRS attempt to restrict the free speech of Americans:
Eastman also said:
"What they did to us is expose our tax returns to our political enemies... it's a felony to have done that and we can't get the Department of Justice to investigate or prosecute the people who committed that felony...We've got people in government and their allies outside of government that are willing to commit felonies to shut down their political opposition on major contested issues of the day."
NOM Chairman of the Board John Eastman spoke for tens of millions of Americans when he slapped down Democratic Congressmem who basically defended the IRS attempt to restrict the free speech of Americans:
Eastman also said:
"What they did to us is expose our tax returns to our political enemies... it's a felony to have done that and we can't get the Department of Justice to investigate or prosecute the people who committed that felony...We've got people in government and their allies outside of government that are willing to commit felonies to shut down their political opposition on major contested issues of the day."
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
More "Heather Has No Daddy": Oppose California's AB 460!
Here's an email from Bill May, President of Catholics for the Common Good, about Assembly Bill 460, which "...expands an already unjust practice – creating children with the intention of depriving them of a fundamental human right to know and be cared for by their mother and father."
"When I testified before the Assembly Health Committee on this bill, I looked the committee members in the eye and asked who has a right to deprive a child in that way? “Who has a right to another person? Does anyone have a right to you?”
There was noticeable discomfort from a committee that typically just ignores our testimony. Even though they had the votes to pass the bill, a majority of the Democrats on the committee felt compelled to defend their position and speak in support of the bill with claims about lesbians’ rights to have children. One member, Wesley Chesbro, sought to make this practice analogous to adoption, an absurd claim, and said having a child with a sperm donor was actually an “act of love” because of the difficulty and expense. Unfortunately, the Republicans on the committee remained silent.
What about the child? I told the committee that sperm donor children are coming of age and are starting to speak out about confusion over their identity, feelings of abandonment, and the recognition they have been treated as commodities. At the request of Alana Newman, a sperm donor child, and founder of Anonymousus.org, I submitted her compelling testimony as a representative of tens of thousands of children experiencing similar feeling after having had their rights violated.
Members of the legislature have never heard these kinds of arguments before. Most are used to thinking about marriage and family from the position of the adults. Arguments from the perspective of the child are much more difficult to ignore, because people know they are true based on the common human desire to know, to be loved by, and cared for by his or her own mother and father. It is undeniable. However, members will continue to ignore us or remain silent unless you and your friends start speaking up. Can I count on you?
Action
Write to your state senator immediately. If you live in the district of one of the Committee on Health members listed below, it is all the more important to ask them to vote no on AB 460. Ask them to not expand the practice of creating children with sperm and/ or egg donors, which intentionally deprives them of the right to know and be cared for by their mother or father or both. See the list of committee members below.
"When I testified before the Assembly Health Committee on this bill, I looked the committee members in the eye and asked who has a right to deprive a child in that way? “Who has a right to another person? Does anyone have a right to you?”
There was noticeable discomfort from a committee that typically just ignores our testimony. Even though they had the votes to pass the bill, a majority of the Democrats on the committee felt compelled to defend their position and speak in support of the bill with claims about lesbians’ rights to have children. One member, Wesley Chesbro, sought to make this practice analogous to adoption, an absurd claim, and said having a child with a sperm donor was actually an “act of love” because of the difficulty and expense. Unfortunately, the Republicans on the committee remained silent.
What about the child? I told the committee that sperm donor children are coming of age and are starting to speak out about confusion over their identity, feelings of abandonment, and the recognition they have been treated as commodities. At the request of Alana Newman, a sperm donor child, and founder of Anonymousus.org, I submitted her compelling testimony as a representative of tens of thousands of children experiencing similar feeling after having had their rights violated.
Members of the legislature have never heard these kinds of arguments before. Most are used to thinking about marriage and family from the position of the adults. Arguments from the perspective of the child are much more difficult to ignore, because people know they are true based on the common human desire to know, to be loved by, and cared for by his or her own mother and father. It is undeniable. However, members will continue to ignore us or remain silent unless you and your friends start speaking up. Can I count on you?
Action
Write to your state senator immediately. If you live in the district of one of the Committee on Health members listed below, it is all the more important to ask them to vote no on AB 460. Ask them to not expand the practice of creating children with sperm and/ or egg donors, which intentionally deprives them of the right to know and be cared for by their mother or father or both. See the list of committee members below.
If you possibly can, come to the hearing in Sacramento on Wednesday, June 12. We need to pack the hearing room to let the committee members and the media know that you care. After I testify, every person attending will be able to state their name, where they are from and their opposition to the bill. We need your support. The hearing will be at 1:30PM, in Room 4203 of the State Capitol Building.
Please pray for that enough people respond to this email and forward it to friends so that we can have a real impact at the hearing on June 12. Please pray that Senators’ consciences will be moved by the injustice of creating children through sperm or egg donation and momentum builds for ending this practice.
For the Common Good,
Bill May
President, Catholics for the Common Good
Senate Committee on Health
Find Your Legislator
Senator Ed Hernandez (Chair): West Covina
Contact Senator Ed HernandezPhone: (916) 651-4024
Fax: (916) 445-0485
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair): El Cajon & Temecula
Contact Senator Joel AndersonPhone: (916) 651-4036
Fax: (916) 447-9008
Senator Jim Beall: Campbell
Contact Senator Jim BeallPhone: (916) 651-4015
Fax: (916) 323-4529
Senator Kevin de León: Los Angeles
Contact Senator Kevin de LeónTel: (916) 651-4022
Fax: (916)327-8817
Senator Mark DeSaulnier: Wallnut Creek & Antioch
Contact Senator Mark DeSaulnierPhone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 445-2527
Senator Bill Monning: Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara & Santa Cruz
Contact Senator Bill MonningPhone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-8081
Senator Jim Nielsen: Roseville, Chico & Crescent
Contact Senator Jim NielsenPhone: (916) 651-4004
Fax: (916) 445-7750
Senator Fran Pavley: Calabasas
Contact Senator Fran PavleyPhone: (916) 651-4027
Fax: (818) 876-0802
Senator Lois Wolk: Vacaville, Napa-Sonoma & Vallejo
Contact Senator Lois WolkPhone: (916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 323-2304
Please pray for that enough people respond to this email and forward it to friends so that we can have a real impact at the hearing on June 12. Please pray that Senators’ consciences will be moved by the injustice of creating children through sperm or egg donation and momentum builds for ending this practice.
For the Common Good,
Bill May
President, Catholics for the Common Good
Senate Committee on Health
Find Your Legislator
Senator Ed Hernandez (Chair): West Covina
Contact Senator Ed HernandezPhone: (916) 651-4024
Fax: (916) 445-0485
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair): El Cajon & Temecula
Contact Senator Joel AndersonPhone: (916) 651-4036
Fax: (916) 447-9008
Senator Jim Beall: Campbell
Contact Senator Jim BeallPhone: (916) 651-4015
Fax: (916) 323-4529
Senator Kevin de León: Los Angeles
Contact Senator Kevin de LeónTel: (916) 651-4022
Fax: (916)327-8817
Senator Mark DeSaulnier: Wallnut Creek & Antioch
Contact Senator Mark DeSaulnierPhone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 445-2527
Senator Bill Monning: Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara & Santa Cruz
Contact Senator Bill MonningPhone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-8081
Senator Jim Nielsen: Roseville, Chico & Crescent
Contact Senator Jim NielsenPhone: (916) 651-4004
Fax: (916) 445-7750
Senator Fran Pavley: Calabasas
Contact Senator Fran PavleyPhone: (916) 651-4027
Fax: (818) 876-0802
Senator Lois Wolk: Vacaville, Napa-Sonoma & Vallejo
Contact Senator Lois WolkPhone: (916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 323-2304
Monday, June 3, 2013
Simply Evil: New York City's official policy to deny children a mother or a father
More "Heather Has No Daddy."
From the Wall Street Journal today comes the news that it is now the official policy of the city of New York to deny children a mother or a father:
"New York City is launching a campaign to recruit gay and lesbian foster parents, part of a major push to expand the kinds of families who consider fostering and to find more welcoming homes for children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer."
This evil campaign follows in the footsteps of the city of San Francisco. As we reported many times when covering the disastrous partnership of Catholic Charities of San Francisco, the policy of the city of San Francisco, as enunciated in the 2006 "Request for Proposals #309" required:
"Increasing the number of children adopted by Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults."
That is, increasing the number of children in households in which a child has no mother or father--sacrificing children in the name of "equality."
Cincinnati: Another case of "Heather has no Daddy"
The well-known book is called "Heather has two Mommies," but a more accurate title would be "Heather has no Daddy."
From Fox News:
"A Catholic school teacher who was fired after she became pregnant through artificial insemination was awarded more than $170,000 Monday after winning her anti-discrimination lawsuit against an Ohio archdiocese.
A federal jury found that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati discriminated against Christa Dias by firing her in October 2010....
Dias said she pursued the lawsuit 'for the sake of other women' who might find themselves in a similar situation. She also said she filed it for 'my daughter's sake, so she knows it's important to stand up for what's right.'"
"A Catholic school teacher who was fired after she became pregnant through artificial insemination was awarded more than $170,000 Monday after winning her anti-discrimination lawsuit against an Ohio archdiocese.
A federal jury found that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati discriminated against Christa Dias by firing her in October 2010....
Dias said she pursued the lawsuit 'for the sake of other women' who might find themselves in a similar situation. She also said she filed it for 'my daughter's sake, so she knows it's important to stand up for what's right.'"
I doubt if the daughter will consider her mothers' selfishly depriving her of a father something that falls into the category of "what's right." Dias, a same-sex attracted woman, will be living with her "partner" in Atlanta. Legal experts say the Archdiocese will appeal.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Vive la France V: "Common sense has woken from a deep sleep"
Nice post at The Thinking Housewife today about the French people's refusal to accept the imposition of counterfeit marriage on La Belle France:
"These photos of Sunday’s Manif Pour Tous demonstration in Paris are exhilarating. It’s not just the huge crowds or the fact that all different ages are represented or the regional flags and patriotic colors or the Parisian buildings and streets. It’s the signs people are carrying: “Everyone is born of a mother and father,” “No, to the destruction of civilization,” “One mother and one father: It’s hereditary,” “Yes to human dignity,” “I am not for sale” and many more.
Common sense has woken from a deep sleep. That’s how it seems when reading these banners. Or as Tugdual Derville, a leader of Manif Pour Tous and a father of six children, recently said, ”It is the soul of France that is waking up.”
Homosexual “marriage” is now legal in France, but it never will be a settled or accepted institution there. Such is the power of truth, once it is embraced by large numbers of people.
"These photos of Sunday’s Manif Pour Tous demonstration in Paris are exhilarating. It’s not just the huge crowds or the fact that all different ages are represented or the regional flags and patriotic colors or the Parisian buildings and streets. It’s the signs people are carrying: “Everyone is born of a mother and father,” “No, to the destruction of civilization,” “One mother and one father: It’s hereditary,” “Yes to human dignity,” “I am not for sale” and many more.
Common sense has woken from a deep sleep. That’s how it seems when reading these banners. Or as Tugdual Derville, a leader of Manif Pour Tous and a father of six children, recently said, ”It is the soul of France that is waking up.”
Homosexual “marriage” is now legal in France, but it never will be a settled or accepted institution there. Such is the power of truth, once it is embraced by large numbers of people.
By the way, notice the absence of Muslims in these pictures despite the large Muslim presence in Paris and the absolute Islamic prohibition against homosexuality. Why aren’t they here? The answer is simple. They do not see themselves as Frenchmen."
The last point is significant, and I think gives a hint as to why there is so much more of a popular uprising in France against the imposition of counterfeit marriage than there has been so far in America. I'll post on this when I get my thoughts in the proper order.
What's that about the First Amendment, Mrs. Huffington?
Ariana Huffington, owner of the Huffington Post, complained about Obama's henchman Eric Holder today on Meet the Press
"This is about the First Amendment, this is about freedom of the press..."
The first amendment to the Constitution reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"This is about the First Amendment, this is about freedom of the press..."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress didn't make any law about seizing phone records of journalists--that was strictly a solo endeavor by Obama's justice department. But Congress did make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion--it's absurdly called the Affordable Care Act. The HHS contraception mandate is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Where were Huffington and the rest of those Democratic "journalists" when that passed? Where is their outrage now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
